The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the reasoning of appeal (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles) and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant had a debt equivalent to KRW 60 million at the time of the instant case, and even if the defendant borrowed money from the injured party without certain economic income, he/she did not have an ability or intent to repay the money, he/she shall be paid with only two months or several months if he/she borrowed money.

Since the judgment of the court below that acquitted the victim is sufficiently recognized, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged 1) The Defendant, at the branch office of the “F” branch office located in Ulsan-gu E building 206, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, Seoul-gu, on November 10, 2015, will use only several months of lending the card loan to the victim G and make a full payment.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, in fact, the Defendant, at the time of the bank account balance, was 200,000 won, and there was no certain profit from around August 2015, but at the time of operating H insurance company’s agency, the Defendant was obligated to pay the amount equivalent to KRW 60,000,00,000, such as the advance payment to be refunded to the head office upon the discontinuance of the said business, and thus, there was no intention or ability to pay the said amount even if

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and received 9.9 million won from the victim as the borrowed money.

2) On January 5, 2016, the Defendant is expected to use only two months from the lending of money to the victim in the room of the above “F” branch office.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the bank account even if he borrowed money from the injured party, because the bank account balance at the time was 150,000 won, while the Defendant experienced economic difficulties such as the above 1).

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and received 15 million won as the borrowed money from the injured party.

B. The lower court’s determination is based on the following circumstances.