The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant, whenever borrowing money from the Victim H, deceiving the victim as if he were to repay the money at a prompt time; and (b) the Defendant was not able to repay the borrowed money to the victim due to economic difficulties at the time of the establishment of a local corporation in Indonesia

The defendant paid part of the borrowed money to the victim.

However, it is difficult to accept this as it is, because it is contrary to the content of the fairness deed regarding promissory notes in the face value of KRW 77 billion prepared by the defendant on April 25, 201.

Even if so, there was a criminal defendant's intentional act of deceiving the victim or deceiving the criminal defendant.

The lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the grounds that it is difficult to view the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that the evidence produced by the prosecutor alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant was deceiving the victim or that there was the intention to defraud the Defendant by continuously borrowing money from the injured party without the intent to repay or ability to repay.

It is insufficient to view the facts charged in this case, and on the ground that it is difficult to view the victim as having conducted any act of disposal of the remaining property, which was erroneously recorded by deception that could impose criminal liability for a crime of fraud, the defendant was innocent.

① The victim continued a long-term transaction from 2006 to 201, such as operating the company E (hereinafter referred to as “E”)’s business, which was established by the Defendant from 2006 to 2014, on his/her own account while maintaining business and business relations with the Defendant from 2001, and did not specify the specific period of repayment without interest.