The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) was in a realistic situation where the Defendant had already caused enormous disruptions to the business at the time of borrowing money from the damaged person, and there was no possibility of realizing the plan that intended to repay the borrowed money with the proceeds from sale in lots due to the full review of the project, and the Defendant was responsible for heavy debts due to the shortage of expenses due to the increase in the project cost.

As such, the Defendant, without mentioning the victim as to the specific situation where it is impossible to proceed with the business even though the Defendant was unable to repay the borrowed money to the victim, is deceiving the victim and deceiving the borrowed money.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, did not have the intent to repay or ability to repay the Defendant at the time of borrowing the instant money, or had the criminal intent to defraud the Defendant

It is difficult to conclude the facts charged of this case as not guilty.

In addition to the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, a thorough comparison of the court below's judgment with the records is justified, and the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

① At the lower court, the victim appeared as a witness and stated that “The time of sale in lots is delayed due to pressure from the Defendant, even though there was a plan for sale in lots at an unexpectedly permissible time,” the victim stated that “The time of sale in lots has been delayed due to pressure from the Defendant (the page 88 of the trial record).” In the investigation agency, the victim stated that “each time the Defendant borrowed money from the Defendant, it would be appropriate for the Defendant to have conducted a business blishing on the reasons for delayed sale (the page 314 of the investigation record). The Defendant