All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of prosecutor's grounds for appeal;

A. The first lower judgment (1) (1) is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle that the Defendant’s act was sufficiently recognized as performing the act that the Defendant called “I has difficulty,” and the Defendant’s act was not an act acceptable in light of social ethics or social norms. However, the first lower judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby failing to perform the above act by misapprehending the legal principles.

The Defendant’s above act was not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is an act permissible in light of the social ethics and social norms.

(2) The Defendant’s act of not guilty of the lower judgment of unfair sentencing constitutes defamation, and thus, based on the sentencing, the sentence of the lower judgment of KRW 1,50,000, which pronounced a fine of KRW 1,500,00

B. In light of the fact that the defendant deceptions as if he had ability to repay to the victim C, lends money on the premise that he would receive a return within the victim C, and that the defendant was aware that he did not receive the money borrowed from a third party, and that he did not return the money of the victim C, the intention of defraudation is sufficiently recognized. However, the second judgment of the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the defendant did not have intention to acquire money by mistake of the facts and did not have intention to acquire it.

2. Determination:

A. We examine the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance judgment on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning by the first instance judgment cannot be recognized as performing the Defendant’s act called “I has a difficulty. I may not call to E as stated in the facts charged in the first instance judgment, and the above facts charged on the ground that the Defendant’s act is an act permissible in light of social ethics or social norms.