The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In light of the fact that the Defendant entered into a security loan agreement prior to the purchase of the instant vehicle and purchased the instant vehicle, and the timing of the sale of the instant vehicle, etc., the Defendant could be found to have by deceiving E as if the Defendant would establish a collateral security right on the instant vehicle, thereby deceiving the victim to acquire the loan for the purpose of purchase of the vehicle, the lower court erred by misapprehending

Judgment

A. On August 10, 2013, the Defendant: (a) purchased two cars D at the point of the two cars located in Seosan City, Co., Ltd.; and (b) completed a loan application containing the condition that a collateral security is set up for 50% of the purchase price of the automobile at the time of registration of the automobile; (c) stated that “A vehicle is urgently used for the said branch’s business operator, which would change the vehicle first; and (d) subsequently, as if the said passenger vehicle was created a collateral security, the Defendant was handed over the said passenger car and received a loan of KRW 30,50,000 from the victim Aju Capital Co., Ltd. on August 16, 2013.

However, at that time, the Defendant had no intention or ability to set up a right to collateral security with the victim, even if the Defendant received a loan from the victim and purchased the said van, because it was necessary to operate the Agricultural Machinery Repair Point.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving E as above, received the above knife from E, and then acquired 30,500,000 won of the loan by receiving the above knife purchase price from the victim on August 16, 2013.

B. On August 10, 2013, the lower court: (a) at the time when the Defendant entered the branch of a pair of automobiles D on August 10, 2013, the lower court only affixed the seal and affixed the seal; and (b) whether the Defendant establishes a right to collateral security.