The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal is sufficiently aware that it is not clear that the Defendant would recover the claim from F is not sufficient to do so, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty, despite the fact that the crime of fraud was established, by deceiving E as if it were possible to recover the claim immediately, and thereby taking money from E.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court determined that: (a) lack of evidence to prove that the Defendant had no intention to repay the instant monetary amount at the time of receiving the instant monetary amount; and (b) in relation to whether the Defendant had the ability to repay the instant monetary amount, if the Defendant lent money to the Defendant with the full knowledge of the circumstances, even if the Defendant could not repay the instant monetary amount within a short time, then the Defendant could not be deemed as deceiving the Defendant; (b) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone led the Defendant to the mistake of E in relation to the ability to repay.

It is insufficient to view that E is not a mistake in the Defendant’s ability to repay, but rather, it is judged that E is expected to assist the Defendant in its business in the future and delivered money to the Defendant, even though the Defendant was aware that it was not a location to repay the borrowed money within a short time due to the impossibility of the Defendant at the time. Thus, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to view that the facts charged in this case was proven to the extent that it is beyond a reasonable

B. According to the records of the party deliberation, the defendant, at the time of borrowing the instant money, was to receive assistance from the K-A-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U.