The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principle), the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant, as stated in the instant facts charged, did not find the victim.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is D’s owner, and E’s external third village.

Around May 18, 2017, the Defendant: (a) provided that “Around January 27, 2017, the Defendant borrowed KRW 15 million from the said G to the said G G’s office using the said computer; (b) provided that “Around January 27, 2017, the Defendant, the Defendant, (c) lent KRW 4 million to E by doing work as a seafarer of the Defendant’s fishing vessel, but did not work as D; (d) on February 18, 2017, the Defendant borrowed KRW 15 million from the said G to the owner of the other fishing vessel; (d) borrowed KRW 15 million from the said G to the said owner; (e) provided that the Defendant did not file a criminal complaint against the said owner; (e) provided that he/she would have the said owner of the said vessel, who borrowed KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000 to the said owner of the said vessel; (c) provided that he/she would have abandoned the Chapter 100,3.

However, in fact, E shall pay to H 15 million won borrowed from the Defendant on February 2, 2017 from the Defendant as early February 2, 2017, and the same year from February 2, 2017.

3. Until December 28, 200, when serving as a seafarer of D, the aforementioned 4 million won and the above 2 million won were fully repaid, and thus, D was not engaged in work as a seafarer or did not escape on the date of promise.

Nevertheless, the defendant thought that E would have worked as a seafarer for one year from February 2017, but he/she would no longer work as a seafarer after he/she worked for two months.

하며 연락을 끊자 괘씸한 마음에 E을 허위로...