The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal consistently stated to the effect that the victim “the person who prepared a loan and a person who borrowed money at the time shall be the defendant.” The victim was unaware of the fact that D actually used the loan, and as long as the vehicle name is the defendant, the defendant was involved in the act of disposal of D's vehicle.

In light of the fact that it should be seen, the defendant can fully recognize the fact that he/she defrauds the victim by deceiving the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant would lend the victim B with “a KRW 15 million three months after the loan of KRW 15 million,” and, if not repaid after the three-month period, would offer a car owned by the Defendant as security.

“.....”

However, in fact, the Defendant received money from the injured party and thought that all of them would be permitted to use D, and disposed of on December 23, 2010, which was after the month of borrowing the above vehicle that was offered as security, and without any special revenue at the time, there was no intention or ability to repay the above borrowed money to the injured party.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and was delivered 15 million won to the corporate bank account (E) in the name of D on November 4, 2010 as the borrowed money from the victim.

B. On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court rendered a judgment that the Defendant was not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant acquired money from the victim without intent and ability to repay the borrowed money, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(c)

The defendant is D to borrow money from the court below to the victim, and the defendant is D.