The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the reason for appeal is acknowledged that the defendant deceivings F as if he had the ability to repay the additional loan due to the existing interest loan, even though he was unable to repay the loan due to the failure to do so.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that did not recognize that there was a criminal intent to acquire the defendant by fraud has an error of mistake of fact.

2. Determination

A. Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court considered the following circumstances: (i) the Defendant continuously earned income from the instant loan before and after the instant loan; (ii) the Defendant was holding assets, such as apartment buildings, land, temples, etc. at the time of the instant loan; and (iii) the Defendant transferred the instant loan to the F husband’s account and F’s account over two years from September 4, 2010 to April 16, 2013, or paid the FF’s deposit to F, the Defendant paid the principal and interest of the instant loan. In so doing, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone was received KRW 49 million from F with the intent to borrow the instant loan without the intent or ability to repay the instant loan at the time of the instant loan.

It is difficult to conclude it, and on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, not guilty.

B. The above determination by the court below is justifiable even if it was examined in the above trial, and thus, the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.