The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant is a vehicle that the victims could not normally operate at the time of receiving the deposit from the victims, and the defendant knowingly lent the vehicle to the victims. At the time of lending the vehicle, the defendant not only used the deposit received from the victims in a different place, but also did not have the intention or ability to return the deposit after deducting a certain amount from the victim for one year.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case, and the judgment of the court below erred by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

The lower court acquitted the instant charges on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and there was an error of misunderstanding of facts, as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

subsection (b) of this section.

Ultimately, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

① The Defendant explained to the effect that, as the borrower is obliged to return the vehicle to the borrower when the borrower repaid the loan to the victims, the vehicle borrowed is immediately returned to the borrower, but the Defendant calculated the depreciation amount at the time of return and returned the balance of the deposit. It is reasonable to view that the relationship between the deposit and the loan and the use of the deposit is used as the loan.

② Since the Defendant was not directly involved in the secured loan business of G, etc., it seems that he/she did not know about the economic situation or recovery of funds of the loan obligor.

(3)