The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant had no particular property at the time of the instant loan; and (b) was liable to the financial

In addition, when determining the defendant's intent to repay or ability to repay, only the property of the defendant should be based.

Even if an officetel owned by the Defendant’s wife is considered as active property, it was not adequate to repay the loan obligations of this case in consideration of the Defendant’s and his wife’s obligations.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intent to repay or ability to repay at the time of the above loan, and the facts charged in this case are fully convicted.

2. On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone did not have the intent to repay or ability to repay the Defendant at the time of the instant loan.

Since it is insufficient to recognize the facts charged of this case, the facts charged of this case was acquitted.

Since the debtor of the loan of this case is the defendant's wife C, it is necessary to consider the defendant's own ability (the defendant does not legally guarantee the above obligation, and the defendant does not bear the above obligation). The defendant, upon obtaining the loan of this case, offered a vehicle of 30 million won (the market price of the above vehicle also stated in the facts charged of this case as KRW 30 million) to the NH Capital Co., Ltd. as security and established a mortgage (the acquisition of ownership of the above vehicle in the car registration and the settlement of mortgage is C).

NH Capital Co., Ltd. received approximately KRW 17.3 million out of the loan principle through the auction procedure of the above vehicle around November 2014; the appraisal price of an officetel owned by the Defendant’s wife in the court auction procedure was KRW 3.2 million; barring any special circumstance, the appraisal price calculated according to due process can be deemed as reflecting the market price (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da47852, Oct. 29, 2009, etc.). Furthermore, the judgment of the court below is compared with the record.