The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

On February 9, 2015, when taking into account the following circumstances as follows in the summary of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant: (a) did not notify the damaged bank of the fact that a business operator credit loan (hereinafter referred to as “the instant loan”) was granted by the Korea Savings Bank in charge of the settlement of the victim (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”) at the time of obtaining the credit loan from the business operator, and that the same simultaneous loan was made by another financial institution on the same day; and (b) by deceiving the damaged bank.

Although it can be seen, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous.

A. Before receiving the instant loan, the Defendant was loaned KRW 27 million in total from other loan companies on February 9, 2015, including the instant loan, even though the amount of the loan received from other financial institutions falls under KRW 70 million.

B. The damaged bank inquireds the credit immediately before the instant loan, and did not include the details of loans to other lending companies that took place on February 9, 2015, and the Defendant did not notify the damaged bank that it would receive a small amount of loans at the same time from the other lending companies on the same day.

(c)

At the time of the instant loan, the Defendant was in need of KRW 30,000,000 as rent and operating expenses for the health room because the overall operation of the health room is difficult, and the Defendant was in need of KRW 4.5 million as well as various public charges, including monthly and annual management expenses, KRW 2,00,000,000, and electricity taxes, etc. in relation to the operation of the health room.

(d)

In such circumstances, the fact that the Defendant received loans simultaneously from the lender on February 9, 2015 is an important factor in determining credit loans by the damaged bank, and it is apparent that the damaged bank would not engage in the relevant transaction if it was notified of such circumstances. Therefore, the Defendant’s implied act without notifying it is a deception against the damaged bank.

(e).