The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), the victim's period of investigation, the statement in the original trial, the victim's G investigation agency and the court below's legal statement, etc., the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case, but the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding

2. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) concluded a lease agreement to transfer the instant store to G, who is his/her father, to G, with an interest in the instant store in the process of establishing a legal entity and establishing a new store in Gangdong-gu Seoul (hereinafter “J store”); (c) concluded a lease agreement to transfer the instant store to G, who is his/her father, and (d) purchased the said store from around July 2014 to around July 201, which was operated by the Defendant at the time of borrowing the instant store; and (e) concluded a lease agreement to take over the said store from around 100 to KRW 20 to KRW 30 to KRW 1,00,000 at the time of borrowing the instant loan; and (e) the Defendant appears to have temporarily known the sales of the instant F store or the cost of the instant lease agreement from around 200 to KRW 20 to KRW 30,000 to KRW 20.