The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

According to the evidence submitted, it may be recognized that the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the rent at the time of leasing the instant vehicle.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

A. At around 15:00 on August 1, 2012, the Defendant issued a false statement to the victim C (55 years old and female) at an inn place of “Nebrenk” in No. 127-9 [15 years old and female] Shin-dong 127-9 [1]n, the Defendant leased a vehicle to the victim’s account immediately on the lease of the vehicle.”

However, even if the vehicle is leased, there is no intention or ability to pay the rent.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, acquired the 2,40,000 won of the rent from the victim by leasing the car volume from the victim.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that, in full view of the following: (a) when the Defendant leased the instant vehicle from the victim; (b) the Defendant’s property and income at the time when the instant vehicle was leased; (c) the Defendant took contact with the victim upon the occurrence of a traffic accident while driving the instant vehicle; and (d) the Defendant stated the amount and timing of repair fees; and (c) the Defendant stated the true personal information in the vehicle lease agreement, the Defendant was liable to pay the instant rent at the time of leasing the instant vehicle; (b) when a traffic accident that was unexpected at the time of leasing the vehicle but was not anticipated at the time, the Defendant could have lost the intent to pay the rental fee with the repair cost; and (d) there is no

In full view of the evidence submitted, the judgment of the court below is just, and the prosecutor's allegation of mistake is without merit.

In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is the same.