The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal consistently led to the Defendants’ consistent confession in the investigative agency of the instant crime; Defendant B had no certain import at the time of the instant case; Defendant A was economically poor in credit; the Defendants consumed 40 million won from G as a fine and living expenses; and the Defendants failed to refund KRW 40 million until the pronouncement of the lower judgment. In full view of the following: (a) even if the Defendants sufficiently recognized that they received money from G to cover living expenses, as if they were their own possession, to cover the living expenses, etc. under a condition that they did not have any capacity to repay, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the instant charges on the grounds that the loan of this case was practically owned by Defendant A without any ground; and (b) the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and by violating the rules of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On March 18, 2009, the Defendants entered into a lease agreement with G on the deposit money of KRW 40 million for the loan of KRW 40 million for the loan of KRW 40 million and the lease agreement of two years for the term of lease of the loan of KRW 101 on the following grounds: “The ownership of this loan of KRW 101 is released in the name of H, an ASEAN,” and Defendant B entered into a lease agreement with us on the deposit money of KRW 10 million for the loan of KRW 40 million for the term of lease of KRW 2 years.”

However, in fact, Defendant A was not in contact with H, the nominal owner of the above loan, and it was unclear whether Defendant A has ownership due to the dispute over ownership. The above loan was scheduled to proceed with an auction by setting the right to collateral security, etc., and Defendant B did not have any income and Defendant A received the deposit for the lease from G as the bad credit holder.