The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal follows: (a) the Defendant actively made a false answer to the question of the important part of the victim bank; (b) the Defendant did not receive the instant loan and filed an application for personal rehabilitation; and (c) the fact that the victim bank did not properly examine the Defendant’s credit status cannot be seen as a circumstance where it could not deny the relationship between deception and disposal; (d) the Defendant’s deception and deception, and the relationship between deception and deception and disposal, can be sufficiently recognized; and therefore, (e) the lower court acquitted the Defendant, which erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal principles on fraud.

2. The lower court, based on the detailed circumstances stated in its reasoning, found that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone had the intent to acquire by deception or had relation to the criminal act of deception and disposal by the Defendant.

It is insufficient to conclude that it is difficult, and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge it, and thus the acquittal was pronounced.

If the evidence of this case is examined according to the records, the judgment of the court below is justified.

In addition, since the applicant for a loan to the second financial right like the victim bank is not high credit rating, it is not easy to expect that the loan will not be true due to the advice of the loan solicitor if the applicant for the loan is applied through the loan solicitor. At the same time, when the applicant for the loan to another financial institution also applies for the loan, the victim bank will implement the loan as a principle on the date of the application (in the case of the defendant, the loan application was made on November 18, 2016, which is a summary day, and the loan on the 21st day of the same month, which is a summary day.