The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is objectively clear that the Defendant did not have sufficient means to repay to the Defendant I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”) on the basis of around July 201, 201, when the Defendant borrowed money from the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) among the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court, based on the judgment, determined as follows.

B. (2) Under the title "judgment", the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to maintain I as an enterprise continuously at the time of borrowing from the victim the amount of KRW 50 million from July 201, and KRW 1 billion from the end of July 2011.

The Defendant and I were not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant borrowed each of the above money without intent and ability to repay the above money.

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no illegality that affected the judgment by mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

(1) Even if an enterprise’s sales and operating profit rate at the time of borrowing money from others have deteriorated compared with that at the time of borrowing money from others, it is difficult to readily conclude that it did not have the intent or ability to repay at the time of borrowing money solely on the ground that the enterprise continuously increases or decreases during business activities, such as sales and operating profit rate.

(2) The Seoul Central District Court shall I on October 19, 201.