The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Around November 2009, the Defendant did not have any way or plan to repay the debt amounting to KRW 21 million. In full view of the fact that, in fact, the Defendant did not have any way or plan to repay the debt amounting to KRW 21 million from the victim, the contact was cut down and closed, and the Defendant paid KRW 15 million to the victim. However, the Defendant claimed that the victim was paid KRW 30 million, which he lent to the Jeju-do Corporation around 2000 to the victim. According to the Defendant’s letter of payment dated March 28, 2012, which was written by the victim, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was signing only when the amount was recognized as KRW 69.4 million, which was written by the victim, was contrary to the empirical rule, and the Defendant did not additionally pay the debt amounting to KRW 15 million, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant did not have any intention or ability.

Around 2011, although the principal contractor I and the Defendant did not specifically set forth the subcontract details of tin construction, the Defendant said that the subcontract amount would be KRW 150 million to the victim constitutes deception. However, even if the Defendant was paid all construction expenses from K and the principal contractor I by January 2012, 201, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the Plaintiff, since the Defendant did not pay the borrowed amount to the victim, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay.

On November 2009, the lower court determined that a loan of KRW 21 million was granted on or around November 2009, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay to the Defendant, in view of the fact that the operation of the game room was not consistent with the Defendant’s expectation, and the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 15 million was made.