The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal states that the defendant did not have any specific purpose at the time of borrowing money from the victim and could not be said to have no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money. However, it is clear that the purpose of the borrowed money in this case was specified as a golf course construction project by clearly stating that the defendant invested KRW 500 million in the golf course project, and the defendant used a considerable portion of the borrowed money for the deposit or other personal purpose, and the defendant used it for the deposit or other personal purpose, and considering the security established on the real estate owned by the defendant at the time of borrowing and the real asset value of the claim held by the defendant at the time of borrowing, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, on the ground that the defendant had no ability to repay the borrowed money.

2. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that (i) the Defendant could not be deemed to have specified the purpose at the time of the instant loan as the funds for the golf course construction project, and (ii) the Defendant did not think that the instant loan was used for the golf course construction project at the time of loan, and (iii) the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the instant loan funds, on the grounds that it is insufficient to deem that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the loan funds.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the prosecutor's above ground for appeal is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the appeal is groundless.