The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) The prosecutor is difficult to believe that the defendant was given KRW 50 million under the pretext of investment in I with respect to the revenue of KRW 30,000,000,000 to the government-funded juristic person by stamp tax and fees; and (b) the defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay even if he borrowed KRW 52,64,000 from D as there is no special property other than the monthly revenue of KRW 2,000,000 and KRW 3,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which is KRW 17,000,000,000,000 won, from among the above money, by deceiving D and using it as living expenses, etc., although it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant acquired the money by deceiving D, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the facts of the facts charged in this case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

가. 이 부분 공소사실(원심 무죄부분) 피고인은 2013. 3. 28.경 장소불상지에서 D의 아내 F에게 전화하여 “시댁에서 20억 원 상당의 건물을 유산으로 받아 이 건물을 담보로 대출을 받기로 하였는데 대출금 수령 과정에 문제가 생겨 5,000만 원을 은행에 미리 내야 대출금 9억 7,000만 원을 바로 받을 수 있다. 1주일만 사용하고 이자로 1,000만 원을 줄테니 돈을 빌려 달라”고 거짓말하였다.

그러나 사실은 당시 피고인은 시댁에서 유산으로 20억 원 상당의 건물을 받은 적이 없고, 별다른 재산이 없어 D로부터 돈을 빌리더라도 이를 제때 변제할 수 있는 의사나 능력이 전혀 없었다.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving D as above, received KRW 10 million from D to the Gyeongnam Bank account (H) in the name of the Defendant G on the same day from D.