The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence presented by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, even though the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact of deceiving C by deceiving C, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of mistake of facts.

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant asserts that, at the time of borrowing money from C, the Defendant borrowed money from the victim because he was unable to properly perform the insurance design business due to personal circumstances, such as carrying out divorce procedures with her husband, etc., and that the Defendant continued to be an insurance solicitor, and that he had the intent and ability to fully repay the instant borrowed money.

B. Comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances, namely, ① was aware that the Defendant was using money when he borrowed money from C because he was a bad credit holder due to her husband and was unable to use his card, and there was no circumstance to deem that the Defendant used 4.5 million won borrowed from C differently from the above usage; ② The Defendant borrowed the above money from C, and the facts charged in this case stated that the Defendant was “salken contract”. In fact, the Defendant was able to receive 7 million won from the School Life on June 20, 2014 and received 7 million won from the School Life on June 20, 2014 after purchasing the insurance contract, and even around 27 million won, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant was unable to repay the above 4.5 million won borrowed from C with the borrowed money borrowed from C and received 4.5 million won by the Defendant on June 20, 2014.