The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), although the defendant independently borrowed money from the damaged person without the intention to repay or ability to repay, as stated in the facts charged, the court below held that the defendant borrowed money from the damaged person with G and H solely on the basis of the circumstances in its ruling.

In light of the facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: “The Defendant has no special property and operated by himself.”

Although the PC room did not have the intent or ability to repay money even if it borrowed money from the victim D in reporting the enemy, it was obtained by deceiving the victim on July 22, 2014 in the Defendant’s vehicle located near Busan East-dong Busan-dong, Busan-dong, and borrowing KRW 17 million around July 23, 2014, KRW 10.4 million around July 23, 2014, KRW 97 million around September 19, 2014, KRW 8.5 million around September 23, 2014, KRW 19 million around September 23, 2014, and KRW 64.6 million around September 30, 2014.

B. On September 19, 2014, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged on the grounds that the Defendant’s 3.84 million won (i.e., Sept. 19, 2014), among the amount stated in the facts charged, was not borrowed money by the Defendant, and the remaining 6,0760,00 won, was borrowed with G and H, a partner, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

(c)

1) The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that all the facts charged of this case are denied and the following are asserted.

① Of KRW 9.7 million on September 19, 2014, the amount of KRW 3.84 million remitted to F’s Busan Bank account is the amount that the Defendant was unaware, and most KRW 5.86 million was transferred to G’s husband Q Q., and thus, the Defendant was not the money borrowed.

② Since the Defendant asked the victim to lend money for the first time on July 30, 2014, the Defendant did not borrow money from the Defendant. As such, the amount of KRW 17 million as of July 22, 2014 and KRW 10.4 million as of July 23, 2014, which the victim transferred prior to the commission, was not the amount borrowed by the Defendant.

(3)