The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the following facts: (a) at the time of the instant appeal, the Defendant was living very difficult to make a living; and (b) there was almost no repayment to the victim; and (c) the Defendant borrowed money from the victim without disclosing the victim’s economic situation, it can be recognized that the Defendant, even though the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to make a repayment, by deceiving the victim and by deceiving the victim.

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone, based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor, had the intent and ability to repay at the time of the instant case by deceiving the victim.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it is not recognized that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the prosecutor (the fact-finding that the defendant was liable to the defendant at the time of the instant case according to the fact-finding conducted by the prosecutor, and the defendant appears to have expressed the victim that his economic situation at the time of the instant case is difficult, and even if such circumstance is recognized, it is difficult to reverse the judgment of the court below that the defendant did not have any intention to acquire by fraud).