The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The application for compensation of this case is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor including the loan certificate prepared by the defendant and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that the defendant acquired money from the complainant C (hereinafter referred to as the "offender") as stated in the facts charged should be fully recognized. However, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion

2. Determination

A. 1) On July 19, 2006, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant received the instant money under the name of the Defendant. The Defendant received KRW 12 million from the complainant, but the Defendant received the payment of interest and principal from the complainant, not by borrowing the money. However, according to the evidence duly examined by the lower court, it is acknowledged that the Defendant received KRW 12 million from the complainant and received the said money from the complainant, not by borrowing the money. However, according to the following circumstances, the Defendant asserted that: (a) the Defendant had no intent or ability to pay the interest and principal, even if he borrowed the money from the complainant, such as by paying only KRW 90,00,00,000,000,000 from the complainant, and by receiving KRW 12,000,000,000,000,000,000 from the complainant; (b) the Defendant received the money from the complainant, not by borrowing the money; (c) the Defendant was duly admitted.

① In other words, the complainant granted KRW 12 million to the defendant who works as an insurance solicitor around July 2006, and the complainant was insured to pay KRW 170,00 per month by making the husband of the complainant as the insured, but the complainant did not have any circumstances to pay monthly insurance premium.