The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. The lower court determined otherwise, even if the Defendant did not have any idea to purchase scrap metal generated at the construction site located in Namyang-si at the time of borrowing money from the victim B, and there was no intention or ability to return the principal and interest in the future.

2. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone, based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor, did not have any intent or ability to return the principal and interest promised as the proceeds after purchasing a scrap metal with the proceeds as the down payment at the time of borrowing the amount of KRW 50 million from the victim, and that there was no other evidence to prove otherwise.

In light of the circumstances admitted by the court below and the following additional circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

The Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the victim to pay interest of KRW 2.5 million each month, and paid the interest between two months.

In light of this, the defendant seems to have been able to purchase scrap metal through F at the time.

3. According to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings by an applicant for compensation, an applicant may not appeal against the judgment dismissing an application for compensation or admitting a part thereof, and may not file the same application for compensation again.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do7968, Aug. 24, 2016). An applicant for compensation filed an application for compensation of this case at the lower court after having received a decision to dismiss the application for compensation, and thereafter, filed the application for compensation of this case at the trial. Thus, such application is unlawful.

In addition, it is not only;