The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (legal scenarios) provided by the defendant with false lease contract in the application of the instant loan to the victim constitutes the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means, in addition to fraud, but the court below convicted the victim of the crime of interference with business, but acquitted the defendant as to the crime of interference with business. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to

2. Determination

A. The gist of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, around 2012, applied for a loan by providing the “D building” building owned by the Defendant in the Namyang-si Livestock Cooperatives (hereinafter “victims Association”) as a collateral to the “D building” building owned by the Defendant in Namyang-si, Nam-si, Seoul, for a loan to obtain an additional loan exceeding an appropriate value of security for the said

On June 18, 2012, the Defendant concluded on June 18, 2012, that “A loan evaluator E and staff F of the Victim’s Union who had conducted on-site inspections after receiving a request for appraisal from the victim’s association”, “A building 103 is operating a beauty room on a deposit of KRW 5 million, and is residing alone on the second floor of the building.”

However, the above building 103 was leased after concluding a lease contract with G on the basis of the deposit deposit of KRW 70 million, and the above building was leased after concluding a lease contract with H and I for the second floor of the building as KRW 60 million and the lease deposit of KRW 100 million.

Nevertheless, on June 22, 2012, the Defendant received 1.2 billion won in loan name, including the difference between the actual lease deposit under subparagraph 103 of the above building and the lease deposit stated by the Defendant and the total of the lease deposit for two households on the second floor of the above building and KRW 160 million in total, and KRW 225 million in loan name, and obstructed the Defendant’s loan business by fraudulent means.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act constitutes fraud in the crime of interference with business.