The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the prosecutor’s appeal (misunderstanding of facts) was that the victim D did not receive personnel expenses exceeding KRW 10 million from the Defendant at the time of lending KRW 20 million to the Defendant around October 2, 2014. However, in such a situation, it is difficult for the Defendant to formally pay the victim personnel expenses by borrowing KRW 20 million from the damaged party under the pretext of payment of personnel expenses, and the victim borrowed KRW 20 million from the investigative agency to the court of original trial. The victim borrowed KRW 20 million from the investigative agency to the court of original trial.

The consistently stated that the Defendant was engaged in a trade-free business, and that the transaction was made in a considerable amount.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant’s profit from the transaction is significantly less than the Defendant’s debt amount that reaches KRW 3 billion at the time of the transaction, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant borrowed money to the victim to purchase a copy as stated in the facts charged, thereby making a false statement, and by receiving the remittance from the damaged person, the Defendant acquired the copy by fraud.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by rendering a not guilty verdict of the facts charged in this case.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s assertion against the essential elements of the loan agreement, such as the loan amount, interest, and due date, is consistent with D.

The loan of this case will be used to pay personnel expenses to D while stating that the loan of this case will be used.

It means loaned, and it was immediately repaid on October 8, 2014 by borrowing KRW 100,000,000 from the purchase fund.

The defendant asserts that there is a special reason to make a false statement only for the use of the loan in this case.

It does not seem that the Defendant actually remitted the amount of the instant loan to D within the date or within the day of receiving the remittance of the instant loan, and ③ borrowed the purchase fund of a copy.