The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money to the victim, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged even though the Defendant did not have sufficient collateral value of the benz S350 vehicle first offered as security, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) whether the Defendant had a criminal intent to acquire 20 million won at the time of transfer from E; (b) whether the Defendant borrowed 20 million won from E upon request from F to request from F to borrow money; (c) at the time, the Defendant offered E as security the G Mz Sz Sz Sz S350 vehicles owned by the name trust administrator at the time; and (b) the Defendant asserts that the registration injured owner is only the name trust administrator, and the actual disposal owner of the above vehicle was the Defendant, the representative director, the F, the registry director, and (c) it appears that the Defendant was ultimately lent 20 million won as security; (d) the Defendant did not have the authority to dispose of the vehicle at the time of borrowing 20 million won or more; and (e) the Defendant did not have the authority to dispose of the vehicle at the time of borrowing 20 million won or more; and (e) the Defendant did not have the authority to dispose of the vehicle as security; and (e) there was no possibility of the Defendant’s assertion or authority to dispose of the vehicle.