The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: “The possibility of the Defendant to avoid the nonperformance of obligation at the time of the instant loan was considerable and whether the Defendant intended to endeavor to repay the principal.”

The Defendant, at the time of the instant loan loan as claimed by the Defendant, was produced at least 380 billion won in Switzerland, unlike the total sales price of 670,000 Won - 500,000 Won - 500,000 Won - 1,000 Won - 177,000 Won - 177,00 Won 1,000 Won in Switzerland, in fact, she was actually produced at approximately 380,00 Won in Switzerland, and in light of the Defendant’s estimated earnings and interest accrued at the short time of payment for about five (5) months with regard to the loan of this case as above, and there was no possibility that the Defendant could escape from the above debt on the date of repayment.

It is reasonable to view it.

In addition, from May 30, 2016 to May 30, 2016, considering the fact that only 56,40,000 won of interest was paid over 14 times, and the fact that the principal was not repaid, the Defendant had an intention to endeavor to repay the principal.

It is difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, it is not proven that the defendant's deception or fraud was not proven about the intent or ability to repay the principal and interest of the loan of this case.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. The lower court, while clearly explaining the reasoning of the judgment, found that the Defendant had the intent or capacity to repay the principal and interest at the time of borrowing the instant loan by deceiving or deceiving the victim.

On the ground that it is difficult to conclude the instant charges, the lower court acquitted the Defendant.

In the course of performing the project, the debt is not due.