The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error or misapprehension of the legal principle), the defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the loan as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on a different premise, either by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. The lower court determined that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant did not have the intent to repay or ability to repay the loan, on the grounds that the Defendant did not have any intent to repay or ability to repay the loan (or a small amount that is relatively smaller than three million won), the due date (five years), the victim’s business characteristics (the Defendant’s economic condition as a credit business entity could have been sufficiently known) and the Defendant’s act after borrowing (the fact that the Defendant applied for individual rehabilitation after six months).

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below is conducted, and the fact that the defendant paid interest at least three times as determined by the records is recognized, such judgment is justified, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles pointed out by

The prosecutor's argument of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles 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 ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.