The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the defendant did not lend KRW 30 million to the victim, the court below sentenced the defendant not guilty despite the fact that he had attempted to acquire the amount equivalent to the purport of the claim by filing a civil lawsuit, even though he did not have borrowed KRW 30 million to the victim, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

2. On April 6, 2015, the Defendant submitted a complaint to the Plaintiff to the effect that “The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum with respect to the KRW 30,000 and interest of KRW 30,000 from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint to the day of complete payment,” and attached a loan certificate stating “D shall lend KRW 30,000 to KRW 30,000” (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

However, in fact, the loan certificate of this case is written without any authority by the defendant that the victim living together entered the name and resident registration number in his/her own writing and stored in the street piece "the victim borrowed 30 million won from the defendant." Since the defendant did not lend 30 million won to the victim, there was no other fact that he/she borrowed 30 million won to the victim, there was no monetary claim against the victim.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the above court and obtaining a favorable judgment, attempted to defraud the amount equivalent to the purport of the claim from the injured party, but did not have attempted to dispute with the victim by responding to the suit.

3. The Defendant’s assertion has consistently lent KRW 30 million to the victim several times from the investigative agency to the court, and the Defendant entered the same in the loan certificate of this case by agreement with the victim.

It denies the criminal intent by fraud.

4. The judgment of the court below

A. The lower court found the facts based on the evidence adopted and examined.