The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The defendant, who has a summary of the grounds for appeal, shall replace the victim's call;

There is no plan to apply for rehabilitation or bankruptcy within six months to the victim at the time of borrowing money from the father.

“Along with the signing of the letter of undertaking to the effect that the Defendant applied for rehabilitation at only three months after the loan. It is difficult to deem that the Defendant did not have a plan to apply for rehabilitation at the time of the loan. Ultimately, it is recognized that the Defendant was deceiving the Defendant that there was no plan to apply for rehabilitation, and that the Defendant did not have the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money at the time. As such, the Defendant could recognize the fact that the Defendant by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged of the instant case, thereby deceiving the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below ruled the defendant not guilty, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the facts charged in the instant case was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had a criminal intent to acquire 4 million won from the injured party at the time of borrowing 4 million won from the injured party, or that the Defendant lent 4 million won by deceiving the injured party, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below was conducted in light of the records. The circumstance that the defendant borrowed 4 million won from the injured party, and applied for rehabilitation at 3 months only after the defendant applied for rehabilitation, was planned to apply for rehabilitation at the time of the above loan.

In addition to the fact that it is difficult to conclude the facts charged in this case, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of misconception of facts as alleged by the prosecutor in the judgment below.

It does not appear.

Therefore, prosecutor's above assertion.