The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors or misapprehension of the legal principle) was aware of the fact that the defendant applied for the workout program around July 2010, which is the original office company, in light of the following: (a) the defendant knew of the fact that the brick construction, which is the main office company, applied for the workout program; (b) the construction was suspended and, even if the construction cost was not liquidated due to the suspension of construction; (c) the victim deceivings himself as if he did not state the wife as the guarantor, he would not lend KRW 20 million if he did not lend the wife; and (d) the use of the defrauded money does not interfere with the establishment of the crime of fraud, it is sufficiently found guilty.

2. According to the evidence adopted by the court below, the complainant stated that the defendant lent money considering that he would pay the construction cost and that the defendant also intended to pay the borrowed money by the complainants upon receiving the construction cost. The fact that the construction of the wall was continued by the Corporation even after the application for the workshop was made (it was known at the court below in the delivery of the complaint that it is difficult to construct the wall at the time of the application for the work, but it was also the original subcontractor and the defendant also believed that the construction would be carried out by the Corporation. However, the original contractor decided to suspend the construction while carrying out the construction work at the time of the application for the construction of the wall delivery. By the end of the 2010 Incident, the complainant agreed among the participants in the construction to carry out the construction work until the end of the 2010.).

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court, based on its reasoning, acquitted the Defendant that the Defendant did not pay a loan but did not pay the construction cost normally while carrying out the construction work without gathering the fact that the construction of brickd building was applied for, and that the Defendant would establish the wife as a guarantor.

It is justified that there is no causal relationship between the lending of money and that there is no causal relationship.

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of conclusion is without merit.