The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the victim consistently states the defendant's deception related to the defendant's ability to pay the debt, and thus, the victim borrowed money from a third party under the circumstances where the defendant is economically difficult to do so, there was no party to pay the debt or intent to pay the debt at the time of the loan.

Nevertheless, the lower court found that the victim’s statement was not reliable or consistent on the ground that some of the victim’s statements are unclear or consistent, and that the lower court found the victim not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

2. The summary of the facts charged is a person who operated an entertainment planning company and performed business related to entertainment planning from January 2008.

On January 209, the Defendant stated that “A victim F who had worked as executive director in charge of credit at the office of the Songpa-gu Seoul E Savings Bank (hereinafter “E Savings Bank”) in Songpa-gu Seoul (hereinafter “E Savings Bank”) said that “A victim F who had been employed in the office of the E Savings Bank (hereinafter “E Savings Bank”) was loaned KRW 1 billion to G so that he would have been able to pay money from G during the current suspension of execution. In this context, the Defendant established H, I, and J by the end of 2009, the Defendant may repay KRW 1 billion until the end of 200.”

However, even if the Defendant borrowed one billion won from the victim, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money from the planning company established under the name of another person until the end of 2009.

Nevertheless, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and obtained KRW 1 billion from the victim as the borrowed money around that time.

3. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant borrowed KRW 1 billion from the victim on January 2009 and subsequently did not fully repay KRW 100 million on March 30, 2016, and KRW 200 million on May 23, 2016 to AE (the transferee of the victim’s loan claim).