The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who runs a business of lending the Defendant, and the victim C and D have become aware of the Defendant’s husband and wife for more than ten years.

The victims made an investment in loan trading business through the Defendant, with the purport that the Defendant stated that “the profitability of the business that purchased a loan from the victims is fine, and if an investment is made, it would be able to borrow the loan.”

On December 19, 2006, the Defendant told the victim D to the effect that “The Defendant wired 6 million won to transfer the purchase price of Dogra Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dogg Dog Dogg Dogg Do.”

However, even if the defendant receives money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to borrow money from the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received 6 million won under the pretext of the purchase price of loan from the victim and acquired it by fraud.

B. On January 18, 2007, the Defendant told the victim C to the effect that “I have borrowed a loan in the vicinity of Songdoo Park, but I want to purchase it, I would like to transfer the purchase amount to five million won.”

However, even if the defendant receives money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to borrow money from the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received 5 million won under the pretext of the purchase price of loan from the victim and acquired it by fraud.

C. On January 25, 2007, the Defendant called the victim C by phoneing it to the victim C, and called “a transfer of KRW 3 million with the purchase price of loan.”

However, even if the defendant receives money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to borrow money from the victim.

Nevertheless, the defendant makes such a false statement.