The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although the defendant could fully recognize the fact that he borrowed money from the victim without the intention to repay or ability to repay, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant in the instant charges is a person running a mutually agreed civil engineering work company D.

On January 25, 2011, the Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 130,00,000 from the victim E’s representative F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”); and (b) borrowed the principal on February 29, 2011, the Defendant provided that “Once H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) selects a company as a civil contractor, the Defendant would receive the introduction fee, and thus, he would pay the amount of money.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any property at the time of borrowing money from the victim E, and was not able to receive money from H, and there was no other plan to repay the above borrowed money, and there was no intention and ability to repay it.

On January 26, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 130,000,00 from the victim who received the Defendant’s horse from G to the Defendant’s account.

B. The lower court found the following facts based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated. ① The E operating F (hereinafter “Appellant”) is the same as the Defendant.

) On February 18, 2010, Samsung Titco Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Titteco”) is called Samsung Titco.

B) As between the complainants, the complainants are The Home Packer on the ground of Pyeongtaek-si J (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Home Packer”).

The service contract was concluded with the content that the service cost is KRW 1 billion.

(2) A complainant shall on July 30, 2010.