The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles or factual errors);

A. At the time of the instant loan, the Defendant was bearing interest of KRW 4 million to KRW 5 million each month incurred from the Defendant’s obligation of KRW 100 million, and was not paid the benefits properly. In addition, considering the Defendant’s real estate and the obligation to return the deposit money, given that the real estate in the name of the Defendant was insufficient to repay the existing obligation, the Defendant did not have the ability to repay.

B. After receiving the instant loan, the Defendant continued to contact with the victim after only one-time payment of interest was made, and thereafter did not repay the instant loan obligations, there was no intention to repay.

C. Even if the victim company assessed and loaned the defendant's ability to repay, the causal relationship between deception and disposal is recognized as long as the defendant deceptiond the victim company as if the defendant had the ability to repay and had intent to repay.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the charge against the defendant. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On November 7, 2012, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case concluded a loan agreement with the Defendant, at the Defendant’s home located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, 2107, 603, under which the Defendant borrowed KRW 3 million from a lending agreement interest rate of 39% per annum between the Defendant’s (hereinafter “victim Company”) and the Defendant’s (hereinafter “victim Company”). The lending period was 60 months, and the maturity date was November 7, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). However, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the loan even if the loan contract was made.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 3 million from the Defendant’s bank account in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

B. The lower court’s judgment constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime for the following reasons.