The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not know well the economic situation of the Defendants at the time of lending money to the Defendants. The Defendants, who did not have the ability to repay, notified the complainant of false facts concerning the deposit, premium, and the property status of the Defendants. The Defendants borrowed money from the complainant through such deception. As such, the Defendants had the intent to obtain money from the complainant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the Defendants paid interest on the borrowed money for 15 months each month in 100,000 won; (b) the Defendants used the borrowed money as funds necessary for the start-up business as they were notified to the complainant at the time of borrowing money; (c) the Defendants appears to have lent money to the complainants in expectation that they would repay the borrowed money with profits accrued from the operation of the E-friendly store; (d) even if the Defendants lent money in trust of the deposit and premium for domestic dance institutes or friendly stores, the existence and value of the deposit and premium may vary; and (e) even if the amount differs, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendants had no intent to repay the borrowed money at the time of borrowing; and (b) even if the Defendants failed to notify the complainant of the amount of debt incurred at the time of borrowing money, the Defendants could not be determined to have obtained money by fraud; and (e) the Defendants did not have any additional expenses.