The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The intent of the crime of defraudation of fraud shall be determined as of the time when the accused has delivered the money.

As stated in the facts charged of this case, the defendant can recognize the criminal intent to acquire money from the victim at the time of borrowing money from the victim, so he/she paid only interest on the borrowed money to the victim while providing it to the victim by soliciting the crew members, and he/she had the idea of offsetting the principal with the allowances not paid by the victim.

Even though the crime of fraud is established, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the crime of fraud is not recognized through the above circumstances. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles on the timing of taking the crime of fraud, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant borrowed money from the victim E but did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money normally, and (1) around March 19, 2009, the Defendant borrowed the deposited money and the director's expenses to the above victim in D located in Young-gu, Busan Metropolitan City around March 19, 200.

6. To pay up to 30.30

“Falsely speaking, the victim received KRW 5 million from the above victim as a loan, and (2) around March 26, 2009, at the place described in the above paragraph (1) above, the victim borrowed KRW 3 million as her mother and child with the cost of living, such as electricity and rent, at the place described in the above paragraph (1).

7. To pay up to 30.30

“A false statement,” and the victim received KRW 3 million from the victim as a loan, and (3) on May 8, 2009, at the place described in the above (1) above, the victim borrowed KRW 2 million as the penalty is likely to be imposed.

8. To repay up to 30 days; and

"Falsely speaking, it was obtained 2 million won as the borrowed money from the victim, and acquired it by fraud.

B. The lower court’s judgment is erroneous.