The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) witness G and F’s statement, etc., C is not a real purchase of the D Track (hereinafter “instant Track”) and even if the defendant can be recognized that he had acquired the loan by deceiving the victim in order to repay the loan borrowed in the name of the fund for the purchase of the Track before, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the court below acquitted the defendant, thereby affecting the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On November 28, 201, the Defendant had a loan broker whose name is unknown of the facts charged of the instant case submit documents stating that the Defendant applied for loans of KRW 75,00,000 as the funds for the purchase of the instant fleet to an obligor, and the Defendant jointly and severally liable, at the office of the victim A Capital Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., in the Dae-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Daejeon-dong, 292-3, 201, to an employee whose name is unknown.

However, the facts are as follows: (a) the Defendant, under the name of the Defendant’s wife, applied for a loan in the name of C, as if he purchased the above Track as he purchased the Track in order to repay the money that he borrowed from our Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Capital”); and (b) even if he borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to repay the money.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, was granted KRW 75,00,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) from the victim as a second class loan around that time.

B. According to the defendant's legal statement and the certificate of automobile transfer, the court below held that the defendant was the actual owner of the Track in this case and was granted a loan from Hack Capital in the name of the defendant's wife E in order to repay the loan thereafter, as shown in the facts charged in this case.