The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant exceeded the obligation at the time of lending money, and even though it was possible to sufficiently predict that the insurance agency business operated at the time was difficult within the nearest time, there was a criminal intent to acquire money.

2. In addition to the legal principles as set forth in the judgment of the court below, in case where a third party additionally borrowed money from a borrower to a lender and entered into a joint and several surety contract with the borrower as a guarantor, or provides personal and physical security to the borrower by creating a mortgage, it shall be carefully assessed as to whether the borrower had the criminal intent to obtain money.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly investigated and adopted by the lower court, namely, the Defendant: (a) granted F a fair deed by borrowing money as a joint guarantor; (b) the Defendant paid D interest of KRW 500,000 per month from January 8, 2014 to October 20, 2014; and (c) paid to D more than half of the borrowed amount by paying the interest of KRW 500,000 per month; (d) the Defendant used the borrowed money as an insurance solicitor’s fee; (e) the Defendant used the borrowed money for the purpose of paying wages to employees; and (e) the victim determined interest at a rate of 5% per month exceeding the ordinary interest rate in the course of operating pawnpos; and (e) the Defendant could have taken account of the fact that even if the Defendant paid high interest due to economic difficulties, it appears that the Defendant had induced the victim to receive money from the Defendant.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.