The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On April 23, 2016, the Defendant by mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, by deceiving the victim through C, thereby deceiving KRW 3 million.

Nevertheless, the court below acquired 3 million won from the injured party by deceiving the injured party through C.

The court below rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge this differently. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered unfair sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On April 23, 2016, the summary of the charge of fraud was determined by misapprehending the legal principles. On the other hand, the Defendant did not have any occupation and import at the time, and was thought to use the money borrowed from the victim as money for gambling. As such, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the money even if she borrowed money from the victim.

Nevertheless, on April 23, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D through C, stating that “I will lend KRW 30 million to the victim and make a lump sum payment to the victim,” and the Defendant received KRW 3 million in cash from the victim on the same day.

2) The lower court determined as follows: (a) according to the witness D’s legal statement in the lower court; (b) the Defendant received KRW 3 million from C in total from C in a gambling place around April 2016; and (c) C received money from the injured party on the pretext of lending the above money to the Defendant at around that time; (d) however, the lower court’s evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court may be recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court; (e) the Defendant borrowed money from the victimized party for gambling purposes, namely, (i) the Defendant consistently 3 million won from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, without borrowing from the injured party; and (ii) borrowed money from C

The defendant stated that he was above.