The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B, along with Defendant A, by deceiving the victim and recovering the certificate of borrowing, and by defrauding the victim KRW 60 million.

However, the court below rendered a judgment of innocence against Defendant B, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) On the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below held that ① from the perspective of Defendant B, Defendant A’s recovery of the loan certificate, Defendant A’s collection of the loan certificate would eventually change to the effect that Defendant A would have to pay the full payment to Defendant A, and there is no benefit from direct acquisition of the loan certificate; ② Defendant A would have received the loan certificate from the place where the victim was placed; Defendant A did not have any circumstance in which Defendant A consulted with Defendant B; ③ Defendant A would have not been given prior consultation with Defendant B; ③ Defendant A was returned the loan certificate; and Defendant A stated that it is unrelated to Defendant B’s business. In light of the circumstances, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was offered by the prosecutor that Defendant A would have taken part in the collection of the loan certificate.

The lower court acquitted this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is insufficient to view it.

B) We affirm the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant B of the instant facts charged in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record: (a) the victim told Defendant B to the effect that “Defendant A would have repaid his debt on behalf of Defendant B; (b) Defendant B would have trusted it and had been able to repay his debt to Defendant A; and (c) the victim would have been aware of the detailed circumstance of the lending of the loan certificate to Defendant A on May 18, 2017 with the victim on the basis of the fact that the victim could have known of the fact that he paid the loan certificate to Defendant A., the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant of the instant facts charged is just.