The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts as to the fraud against the victim J, the victim’s statement consistent with this part of the facts charged is reliable. As such, the Defendant’s deception, such as this part of the facts charged, was committed, and it can be sufficiently recognized that there was a causal relationship between the said deception and the act of disposal by the victim.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

① From the beginning of the investigation stage, the victim consistently stated that the Defendant lent KRW 100 million to the F Hospital’s waste-related business.

(2) The defendant and the victim have resistant relations.

Even if the victim is responsible for his/her livelihood, he/she has borrowed money from the bank without any special reason.

Rather, it is difficult to see that the victim borrowed a large amount of money to the defendant because the victim was at the end that he carries on the F Hospital's waste business.

It conforms to the common sense to view.

③ The content of the victim’s statement that the victim did not ask the Defendant whether he/she was in progress of his/her business on several occasions, but the Defendant believed and believed the Defendant’s fake, cannot be said to be an exceptional case in light of the fact that the victim had in an internal relationship with the Defendant.

④ The Defendant, in addition to the victims, had the right to make investments in the F Hospital’s convenience facilities or lent money to a large number of people.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts, the Defendant’s deception, such as the record of this part of the facts charged, was established, and the said deception and the victim’s disposal act, sufficiently recognized that there was a causal relationship between the said deception and the victim’s disposal act.

However, the judgment of the court below that acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous or erroneous.