The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant's fraud against the victim D is based on the wrong designation of the victim Eul as the creditor of the damage party in the course of the defendant's operation in the course of the defendant's application for individual rehabilitation, and received the payment without any ground by reporting the rehabilitation repayment deposit account to the court. Furthermore, the defendant applied for the payment order against the victim based on the non-existent bonds, and then received the victim's claim seizure and collection order against the victim's deposit claim. The defendant is a small-scale company Eul, and the defendant was sufficiently aware of the acquisition details of the above corporation's claim and its existence and existence. Thus, the defendant was willing to acquire money equivalent to the above repayment money by deceiving the court.

Although the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, there is an error of mistake in fact.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant used the money received from the victim I for personal purposes, such as the purchase of bonds, etc., even if the defendant received money from the victim from the victim from the victim, the defendant did not recognize the criminal intent of the defendant to acquire the money, but the court below did not recognize the criminal intent of the defendant to acquire the money.

2. Determination

A. (1) The accused related to the collection of rehabilitation claims is a person who has purchased non-performing loans and operated E with the main purpose of collecting them.

A victim D filed an application for personal rehabilitation with the Seoul Central District Court as its agent on July 2011. At the above legal office, G, a creditor of KRW 44,740,54, as the creditor, written the list of individual creditors and submitted it to the above court. The above court did so in accordance with the above list.