The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, although the defendant could be found to have obtained money in the name of the victim C by deceiving the victim C, and received money in the name of the borrowed money.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (two years of the suspended sentence in October) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, while operating a store for selling female clothes, became aware of the victim C (the 54 years old) as a customer on May 2014, and became familiar with each other.

A) On July 25, 2014, the Defendant: “Around July 25, 2014, the Victim was under control while doing internal bond business.”

A fine of KRW 10 million is not paid at this time, which is currently in several times, and should be paid at this time.

The loan of KRW 10,00,000,000 is being received at the house, and the gold is set at KRW 20,000,000.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any special property or gold, and there was no intention or ability to repay the money even if he borrowed the money from the injured party because it is difficult to cope with operating expenses because the business of the female clothing sales store is not sufficient.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above, thereby receiving KRW 10 million from the victim, and defrauding the victim.

B) On September 17, 2014, the Defendant: “Around September 17, 2014, the Defendant has no money to get any goods to Seoul, and thus, he/she borrowed KRW 5 million prior to the loaning KRW 1 million with KRW 1,50,000 per month, with KRW 1.5 million per month repaid.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, the defendant did not have any special property, and even if he borrowed money from the injured party, he did not have any intention or ability to pay it.