The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (definite) stated that D is a borrowed amount of KRW 90 million as stated in the facts charged by the police (hereinafter “the instant money”), but the prosecutor’s office reversed the statement that the Defendant paid as necessary for the development project specified in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant development project”).

However, in light of the following circumstances, the Defendant did not know D before the instant development project, and the instant development project was implemented by D with D, ② The loan certificate was not prepared at the time when D transferred the instant money to the Defendant, ③ the loan certificate was not made or the interest was not paid, ③ the F, who entered into a joint project agreement with D, did not participate in the project, and D was written after having raised the issue of the project fund; ④ the amount of the loan certificate was written as KRW 82 million, not the actual remittance, and ④ the amount of the loan certificate was written as KRW 90,000,000,000, not the actual remittance.

Therefore, the defendant deceivings D to use the development project of this case, thereby deceiving the money of this case.

2. Determination

A. The lower court consistently stated the instant money from the investigative agency to the court as a personal loan, ② there is room to view that the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant paid the instant money to the Defendant for the purpose of the instant development project cost after having stated it as a personal loan by the police in relation to F, and as such, there is room to view that the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant paid the instant money to the Defendant for the purpose of the instant development project cost by the prosecution, and ④ the statement that the F is consistent with the Defendant’s assertion in the court.