The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, by deceiving the Victim All Savings Bank, obtained a loan, and the V-related part is not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, even if the causal relationship between the Defendant’s deception and the Defendant’s loan of the Victim Bank was recognized.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant changed the trade name of “E” entertainment bars on the first floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D with “E” from around June 16, 2010 to “G”, “H”, “I”, etc. since the Defendant registered in the Defendant’s wife F around June 16, 2010.

On May 2010, the Defendant offered “Specialized Loans for Entertainment Establishments” (hereinafter “Specialized Loans for Entertainment Establishments”) at the first mutual savings bank of Korea, the victim Co., Ltd. on the security of the documents of pre-paid “masts” and the pre-paid loans granted to the owners of entertainment establishments in Gangnam-gu, to employees of entertainment establishments, such as Gonam-nam’s entertainment establishments. On the security of the aforementioned documents, the Defendant came to know that the loans would be made easily by using the J, which is blorder’s hub for the lending of the said loans, prepared false pre-paid documents, submitted them to use them for the opening and operation of entertainment tavern business.

In fact, the Defendant did not pay the pre-paid payment to employees, such as K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, and V at the time of the application for the loan, and there was no actual payment of the pre-paid payment, or the Defendant’s pre-paid payment was made on the condition that the employees take over the obligations of the KRW 0,000,000 or KRW 00,000,000 that the employees assumed while working in the previous business establishment, and thus, there was a claim for

Even if it is difficult to enforce the claim against the former entertainment business entity while bearing a considerable amount of debt.

In addition, the defendant extended Malking loans without explaining the circumstances that require documents for the use of Malking loans to employees.