The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, even if he/she borrowed money from the victim D from September 25, 2008 to September 2, 2010, by deceiving the victim, even if he/she did not have any intent or ability to repay the money, and acquired the money by deceiving the victim by receiving the total amount of KRW 1,717,00 from the victim.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, criminal facts must be acknowledged based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to such a degree that there is no room for reasonable doubt.

Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the degree of such conviction, the interests of the defendant should be determined even if there are suspicions of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictoryly or uncomfortable dismissal.

B. The lower court determined as follows based on the record: (a) the Defendant was trying to pay the amount of money borrowed from the Defendant to the victim, namely, (b) the Defendant was unable to pay the amount of typhoon damage for three consecutive years; (c) the victim did not specifically set the due date at the time of lending money to the Defendant; (d) the Defendant did not have paid the money; and (e) the Defendant was not bad to the extent that he was able to borrow money; and (e) there was a typhoon damage for three consecutive years. The fact that the Defendant lent money to the Defendant and was able to borrow money. The result of the fact-finding on the age credit information (main) (2) as to the Defendant’s lending of money from D (from 2008 to 2010), and the Defendant did not have any obligation from the date of delinquency, etc. to September 201.