The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the summary of the grounds for appeal: (b) the Defendant failed to repay the borrowed money by the due date agreed upon; (c) the Defendant did not appear to have been willing to participate in the auction procedure in light of the financial situation at the time of the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant did not pay the entire borrowed money for seven years or more after the due date and did not meet the contact with the victim

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. A. Around August 16, 2007, the summary of the facts charged of the instant case, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, “The Defendant would repay the Defendant KRW 40 million if he/she borrowed KRW 30 million as 30 million or more and borrowed KRW 30 million as 30 million.”

However, the Defendant did not have any property or income, and even if borrowing KRW 30 million from the victim, it was not possible to participate in the auction and obtain a successful bid. However, even if the Defendant borrowed the above money from the victim, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to obtain an auction by using it, and did not have any intent or ability to receive an auction, even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from the victim, such as having no idea to use it as a private letter or a successful bid price.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 29,906,750 from the Korean bank account (Account Number: E) in the same day from the victim.

B. The lower court’s judgment is unconditional for the Defendant.