The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is reasonable in light of the fact that the Defendant changed the name of the former contractor of a golf range to a victim for the purpose of securing the obligation to pay KRW 5 million in the instant case, and the name of the business operator was changed to the name of the Defendant and the victim, etc., and it is also reasonable to deem that the Defendant had already assumed a direct obligation against the victim prior to the issuance of the instant promissory note, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the

2. Determination

A. A. Around June 2012, the summary of the facts charged: (a) the Defendant requested C to lend KRW 150 million operating funds of KRW 100 million, a golf practice range (hereinafter “instant golf practice range”); (b) around that time C borrowed KRW 90 million from the victim E to lend KRW 150 million to the Defendant; (c) around October 2012, the Defendant repaid KRW 80 million to C; and (d) the Defendant was clearly aware of the fact that the actual creditor of KRW 50 million out of the remaining debt amount was the victim.

However, the Defendant, even thereafter, did not fully pay the principal and interest of KRW 55 million to the victim. On February 27, 2014, the Defendant urged the victim to pay KRW 299 and KRW 404,000,000 to the principal and interest of KRW 55,00,000 to the victim’s face value “5,00,000,000” and the due date for payment, issued and delivered a promissory note with the victim’s face value “5,00,000,000,000 to June 30, 2014, the Defendant concluded that the Defendant would pay KRW 55,00 by June 30, 2014.

However, the defendant was unable to pay KRW 70,000 per month the rent of apartment houses that were residing at the time, and the defendant was obligated to pay the amount of KRW 20,000 to the bank and the amount of KRW 100,000 to F.