The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is merely an investor of an E, F, G sing shop operated by H (hereinafter “the instant entity”) and did not actually engage in the operation of each of the instant entities.

Nevertheless, the Defendant concealed the fact that the Defendant borrowed money from the victim to invest in each of the businesses of this case in order to raise the investment funds for H, and deceiving the victim as the operator of each of the businesses of this case, as if the business funds are needed, and then, by deceiving the victim of the money recorded in the facts charged.

The victim made a loan to the defendant by mistake that the defendant operates each business of this case due to the defendant's deception, and the same act of the defendant constitutes a clear fraud for use.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous.

2. Determination

A. A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who operates a new store in Busan Jin-gu B, Busan, operated the clothing store in B, and was well aware of each other on December 1, 2015, the Defendant borrowed the principal amount of KRW 750 million from around December 14, 2015 to December 5, 2015, with the phone, text, etc., for the following reasons: “When the Defendant opened each of the instant business entities on the 1st, 2nd, and 4th floor of the former D hotel, and borrowed the principal amount of KRW 750 million from around December 14, 2015 to February 12, 2016, the Defendant borrowed the principal amount of KRW 50 million from around December 16, 2015 to around December 5, 2006.

If the Defendant, after securing the victim’s trust on March 3, 2016, borrowed additional money to the victim on or around March 3, 2016, he/she believed that he/she would immediately repay the borrowed money and interest as in the previous case.