The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to each evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, although the court below acquitted the defendant on the remaining 30,000 won (the facts charged in this part) except for the cash 2,70,000 won recognized as the loan money, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged: “The Defendant, even though he did not have the intent or ability to repay at the heading house of 205 Dong-dong 18:00 on April 18, 2013, 2013, 30,000 won, excluding the part which was found guilty in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below (=30,000 won - 270,00 won) to the victim D by borrowing KRW 30,000 in cash immediately from the victim, although he did not have the intention or ability to repay at the heading house of 205 Dong-dong 208, 1108 C

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge after Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge this part of the charge, and that this part of the charge constitutes a case where there is no other evidence to prove it, on the following grounds: (a) even though the Defendant acknowledged that the Defendant borrowed money from the investigative agency to the investigation agency consistently from the victim to this court, the Defendant stated that the amount actually received from the victim is not KRW 30,000,00,000, less than KRW 30,000,000; (b) there is no objective evidence to verify the amount of the money actually received by the Defendant; and (c) there is no objective evidence to confirm this part of the money through the victim’s statement at the investigation stage; and (d) there is no other evidence to prove it; and (e) this part of the charge constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove