The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) confirmed that Defendant A had some of the funds that Defendant A would pay to Defendant B, but the court below acquitted Defendant A on the ground that Defendant A did not borrow KRW 50 million from Defendant B on or around December 30, 2008, the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million cannot be deemed as a loan to Defendant A; Defendant A’s obligation to Defendant A is merely a natural obligation; Defendant A’s obligation to Defendant A is merely a natural obligation; and Defendant A’s claim for objection against distribution does not exist. In light of the above, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles since the court below acquitted Defendant on the ground that Defendant A had a false loan certificate prepared to have a possibility of being forced to be forced to enforce compulsory execution and bears a false obligation.

2. We examine the judgment of the court of this case, and closely examine the reasoning of the judgment of the court of this case by comparing it with the records of this case, and in addition, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the object of lease acknowledged that Defendant A paid five million won lease deposit to Defendant A in the judgment of the court of this case, i.e., the judgment of the court of this case, i., the judgment of the court of this case, i.e., the defendant A's payment of five million won lease deposit to Defendant A

On January 8, 2008, the moving-in report for resident registration was made to Daejeon, and the resident registration was made in the above address until January 8, 2008 (the trial record 130 pages); ② on January 30, 2007, it is confirmed that monthly tax was deposited in the bank account of I in the name of Defendant A (the trial record 146, 149 pages); ③ on the telephone call with an investigative agency and the court of original instance, the witness G made a statement that he/she made a payment on behalf of Defendant B in the year 2003 (the investigation record 261 pages, 106-114 page); on January 30, 2007, the statement of the above witness is relatively specific and consistent; and on the other hand, it is particularly distorted or false.