The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the victim of the grounds for appeal has consistently stated that there is no means to use the borrowed money from the Defendant as gambling money in the investigative agency and the court below’s court; and (b) if the beneficiary provided property equivalent to the illegal cause’s benefit through deception, fraud is established if the beneficiary provided property equivalent to the illegal cause’s benefit, the victim may be recognized by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. On February 12, 2014, the Defendant stated that “The victim’s house located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Seoul Dongdaemun-gu”) in the victim D’s house in Dongdaemun-gu (hereinafter “the victim’s house”) said that “the victim would have been able to perform his/her current Domination and move to another place, making it necessary to pay money.” The Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million, 5% interest per month shall be paid and repaid by April 10, 2014.”

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party, it was thought that it will be used as a living expense or casino gambling fund, and even if it borrowed money from the damaged party due to no certain income or property at the time, there was no intention or ability to repay it.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 5 million from the victim to the bank account in the name of his/her father E on the same day from the victim, and acquired KRW 14.5 million in cash over several occasions from that time to March 31, 2015, and acquired KRW 19.5 million in total.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant did not deceiving D, since the Defendant notified D that he would borrow money from D to use it as gambling funds, such as casino, etc.

It is acknowledged by the witness F's legal statement, the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant, and the witness D's legal statement.