The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and the misapprehension of the legal principle) and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that the defendant deceivings the complainant by means of putting the complainant on his own ability even though he did not have the ability to repay his obligation to the complainant, and the defendant's ability to repay his obligation is important in deciding whether to lend his money to the complainant, and the defendant has no ability to pay his obligation

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. The lower court determined as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated: (i) in the course of developing and receiving the instant loan, most of the development costs, such as construction cost, financial institutions loan interest, etc.; (ii) in the event that the Defendant is unable to pay FF balance to the complainants due to the lack of F development, the complainants agreed to waive all rights related to F; (ii) the Defendant is expected to pay FF money with a financial institution loan secured by F; and (iii) the Defendant was aware of the need for additional development works and open places of business; and (iv) the complainants were aware of the need for additional loans; (iii) the Defendant lent F money KRW 100 million as construction cost at the request of the Defendant at the date of receiving the loan of KRW 2.5 billion as security; and (v) the Defendant loaned the instant loan of KRW 100,000 (attached Form 2 of the lower court’s judgment); and (v) the Defendant granted the instant loan under the name of the representative director, loan interest, expenses for open places of business, etc.