The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. On October 31, 2010, when the Defendant borrowed money, the summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) around October 31, 2010 at the time when the Defendant borrowed money, there was no property from the enemy of KRW 20 million per month because the private teaching institute operated by the Defendant was not well-grounded; (b) the Defendant was unable to operate the private teaching institute because of the delayed payment of the victim’s salary even before the operation of the private teaching institute; and (c) the Defendant was accumulated even after the acquisition of the private teaching institute, and the private teaching institute’s deposit was not returned due to delinquency in monthly rent; and (d) the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the mistake of facts or the recognition of the crime of

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant’s acquisition of a private teaching institute was around November 2012; the actual operation of the private teaching institute was conducted from December 2012; and the Defendant’s accumulated amount of KRW 20,000 per month from November 2012, which the Defendant acquired the private teaching institute.

(No more than 15 pages of Evidence). At the time of borrowing money from the victim, the defendant did not have any particular property, and there was a circumstance that the defendant had not been paid the wages from the operator of the private teaching institute even before the defendant takes over the

Even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim on October 31, 2012, taking full account of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below is justified in finding the defendant not guilty of the charges of this case on the grounds of the circumstances as stated in its holding, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as argued by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act.