The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. At the time when the defendant borrowed money from the victim, the defendant hiddenly borrowed money from the victim even though he was unable to repay because he was liable for a large amount of debt to the financial institutions, etc., and used the borrowed money from the victim as personal living expenses, such as vehicle installments and card bills, so the defendant had the intention to obtain money.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined: (1) the Defendant borrowed KRW 58,431,80 from May 24, 201 to borrow KRW 42,00,00 from the Defendant’s financial status at the time of lending money to the Defendant; (2) the Defendant borrowed KRW 58,431,80 on the same day, and used KRW 42,00,000 as the lease deposit and the remainder of the premium; (3) the Defendant opened the above subparagraph 1 around July 201 and operated until April 2016; (4) the Defendant agreed to open the above “L” 2 between the Defendant and the victim; and (5) the Defendant was aware of the economic interest of the Defendant and the Defendant’s payment of KRW 2,00,00 in the name of the Plaintiff; and (4) the Defendant’s payment of KRW 2,000 to the Defendant’s testimony after entering into a contract with the Defendant, and (5) the Defendant did not appear to have been 1,000 employees and 2,00.