The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant borrowed 300 million won from the complainant for the purpose specified as the purchase price for crap, and used it for any other purpose; and (b) the Defendant, at the time of borrowing 300 million won from the complainant, was unable to repay the principal and the profits under the aggravation of the financial circumstances at the time of borrowing from the complainant, but the Defendant concealed it and received 300 million won from the complainant; (c) therefore, the Defendant’s intent of deception

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that the defendant had no intention to commit deception or fraud.

The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court’s determination is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant borrowed KRW 3.5 million from the complainant to November 8, 2016, 3.5 million borrowed from the complainant as the purchase price for craps, after stating “facts of prosecution” in the written judgment.

② In light of the fact that the Defendant purchased craps worth approximately KRW 7 billion through a company operated by the Defendant, even if the Defendant used part of the money received from the complainant in the repayment of the existing debt, repayment of the existing raw materials, etc., it is difficult to readily conclude that the money was not used as the purchase price for raw materials due to the characteristics of the loans for financing corporate purchase.

③ In light of the fact that the complainant mediated the sale of the company’s factory owned by the Defendant around March 2016, and around around 2016, the complainant received the statement of financial position of the company that the Defendant operated, the complainant seems to have been aware of the company’s management status and financial status.

④ In light of the Defendant’s business history and business status before 2015, the Defendant seems to have believed that the business status of the Defendant was likely to be improved in 2016.

(5) Between the defendant and the complainant.