The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below that found the defendant not guilty by deceiving D with regard to his ability to repay and his intention to repay, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts, although the defendant deceivingd D to obtain money from D.

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant did not pay the agreed amount to D because the business was not carried out smoothly, unlike his/her own expectations, and that he/she knew D or had the intent to defraud the Defendant.

It is difficult to see otherwise, and on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the instant charges were acquitted.

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the defendant's office operation expenses and construction funds are insufficient for D to exceed KRW 500 million.

In short, the Defendant borrowed money from D while borrowing money from D, and (2) the Defendant established the lower claim amount of KRW 150 million in the future with respect to the land owned by D. However, even if the maximum claim amount of senior collateral security established on the said land was excluded, it appears that the value of the said land was over KRW 110 million; and (3) D had established the construction site where the Defendant is running the construction work and the Defendant could receive the payment of the construction cost; and (4) lent money to the Defendant; (5) the Defendant had completed development activities or building reports on the ownership of part of the land owned by the J and M, and completed the development activities or building reports on the said construction work; and (5) the Defendant actually paid the loan amount of KRW 160,000,000,000 to the employees of the same office as the loan amount of KRW 30,505,000,000,0000,000 from the loan amount of the civil construction work undertaken on April 27, 2012.