The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s financial status at the time of borrowing the money; (b) the Defendant’s operation status at the time of borrowing the money; and (c) the Defendant’s use of the borrowed money, the lower court determined otherwise and rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the charge of defrauding the borrowed money; and (d) the lower court erred by misapprehending

2. The court below found the Defendant not guilty of the charges in this case on the ground that it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant had the criminal intent of defraudation at the time of borrowing money from the damaged person on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant used the money borrowed from the damaged person for any purpose other than the operating fund of charcoal, and that the Defendant did not deceiving the victim about the operating situation of charcoal or his/her own property status, and rather, the Defendant appears to have made efforts to operate charcoal and paid interest for a considerable period of time.

The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, details and details of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction execution, unless the defendant is led to confession.

Inasmuch as the recognition of guilt of one part of the facts charged ought to be based on evidence with probative value that leads a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the defendant. The same applies to the recognition of the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do6011, Aug. 23, 2013). Examining the above judgment of the court below closely in accordance with the record and the aforementioned legal doctrine, the court below's judgment is to be determined.