The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, despite the fact that the defendant could be found to have received money as a loan or shopping mall operation fund by deceiving the victim, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant leased and operated the E-child care center located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “child care center”) from the victim F, and recommended the victims to invest in the clothing sales business, thereby opening and operating the Internet shopping mall called “H” in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Internet shopping mall”).

(1) On March 11, 2011, the Defendant stated that “A child-care center repair expenses shall be repaid to the victim within one month from the day when the child-care center is lent” to the victim.

However, even if the victim borrowed money from the victim, it was thought that most of them would be consumed individually, and there was no idea to use it as the repair cost of the child care center, and there was no certain income or property at the time, and there was no intention or ability to repay it within one month under the circumstance that the victim was liable to pay the amount of 130 million won.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 33 million from the victim as the borrowed money from the victim, to the Suhyup Bank account in the name of the Defendant.

(2) On March 12, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement that “the shopping mall operating fund is required for the victim” at the shopping mall office.

However, even if the victim receives money from the victim, it was thought that most of them will be consumed individually, and there was no think that they will be used as the shopping mall operating fund such as the purchase of clothes.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 35 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant, as a loan for the operation of shopping mall around that time.