The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that a notarial deed of a monetary loan for consumption was prepared on June 7, 201 between the Defendant and a limited liability company G (hereinafter “victim”) and the Defendant paid a total of KRW 5 million to the victimized company from November 8, 2012, the Defendant appears to have paid KRW 50 million to the victimized company as a loan on June 8, 201.

B. Considering that the Defendant’s payment of KRW 50 million to the victimized Company on June 8, 2011 (hereinafter “the instant money”) was a security deposit, the Defendant had no intent or ability to return the instant money to the victimized Company at the time of receiving the instant money.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that it was insufficient to prove that the instant money was a loan and that the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to return it at the time of receiving the instant money from the victimized Company, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, based on the fact and circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, and comprehensively taking into account such facts and circumstances.

In addition to the following facts and circumstances known through the records of this case, the court below's decision of not guilty on the basis of the fact finding and judgment as above is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is not accepted.

On June 7, 2011, after a notarial deed for a loan for consumption was first prepared on June 25, 201 between the Defendant and the victimized company, an entrustment contract for liquor distribution was concluded between the same parties on July 25, 201. The term of the contract stipulated in the above entrustment contract for liquor distribution was from July 1, 201 to June 30, 201, and the victimized company already deposited the deposit amount of KRW 50 million on June 8, 201, and after the transaction was terminated, the Defendant.