The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant applied for individual rehabilitation six months after he borrowed money from the victim company; that there was no particular income or property at the time of the loan; that the victim future three life insurance company (hereinafter “victim company”) was unaware of the fact that the defendant applied for a loan to the Korea SC Bank (hereinafter “SC Bank”); and that if he knew of the fact, he would not have made a loan to the defendant; the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles, even though it is acknowledged that the defendant had a criminal intent to commit fraud, the court below acquitted the defendant.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows, based on evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court: (a) the Defendant simultaneously applied for loan counseling and application at the same time in the same place as SC Bank Loan Counseling Co., Ltd and the victim company Loan Counseling Co., Ltd. D; (b) even if the Defendant prepared and issued to D a letter of commitment that there was no fact of application for loan to other financial institutions in the same place, the victim company cannot be deemed to have been unaware of the Defendant’s application for loan to SC Bank; and (c) the Defendant was granted a credit loan of approximately KRW 30 million at an interest rate of about 4.2% from the corporate bank on August 28, 2013, which is the date of the instant loan, and unlike the facts charged, at the time of the instant loan; (c) the victim company was able to grasp the Defendant’s credit information on the Defendant’s obligation through the credit information inquiry about the Defendant at the time of the instant loan; and (d) the Defendant’s property relation and the Defendant’s vocational relation at the time of the instant loan.