The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the circumstances at the time when the defendant borrowed money from the victim F from the victim F, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misconceptions of facts concerning the facts charged of this case, even though it could be sufficiently recognized that the defendant had no intent to repay or ability to repay.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case came to know of the victim F who visited the customer while working as the employee of the Ena club in Busan Shipping Daegu D in around 1994. After that, the victim visited the customer while working as an employee in the Lestop in Busan Shipping Daegu D in 2010, the victim visited the customer again, but from that point of time, he was able to look back with the victim, and he was able to come up with him.

The Defendant, around August 2010, at the 1st floor of Busan Metropolitan City, intended to open a club that can be operated as a club at letostos and nights. The Defendant, upon receiving a request from the victim for a security of funds borrowed, waiting for a customs clearance of KRW 300,000,000 for the total amount of KRW 50,000 for 36 months by paying the principal every six months. The interest shall be calculated as three copies per month, and the interest shall be paid KRW 189,00,000 for 36 months. It is not necessary to lend KRW 30,000,000,000 in total. It is not necessary to lend KRW 30,000,000,000 to KRW 30,000,000,000,000 to KRW 10,000,000.

However, the defendant did not have any fixed income, and the amount invested by the defendant in the above club was limited to KRW 40 million, and the remainder was borrowed from the victims, including the victim.