The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On April 30, 2007, the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts (not guilty part) was consistent with the victim E’s statement relating to the Defendant’s 80 million won borrowed from April 30, 2007 (hereinafter “instant KRW 80 million”) and the borrowed amount of KRW 50 million borrowed from December 22, 2012 (hereinafter “instant KRW 50 million”), and thus, the Defendant’s deception can be recognized.

The criminal intent of defraudation is recognized in light of the economic situation at the time of the defendant.

It is recognized that the crime of defraudation is committed because the defendant is aware that the bill which was borrowed from the Z as security is not defaulted, even if the bill was borrowed 15 million won.

B. Improper sentencing (guilty guilty part) sentencing is light of the original sentence.

2. Determination

A. 1) On April 30, 2007, and December 22, 2010, as to E, the following circumstances acknowledged by the reasoning of the lower court’s innocence revealed by the lower court and the evidence examined by the lower court are insufficient to recognize the facts charged, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone.

The judgment of the court below is justified.

① On March 30, 2004, the Defendant first borrowed KRW 70 million from E, and received KRW 29,200,000 at a face value at a discount of KRW 30 million on the same day, and additionally borrowed KRW 30 million from E on May 27, 2004.

On April 30, 2007, the Defendant borrowed an additional amount of KRW 80 million on April 30, 2007, when he/she had repaid the principal and interest of the said borrowed amount from time to time.

② From around 2008, the Defendant had a number of bills traded with E, and the Defendant issued bills to E, and paid the remainder after deducting the principal and interest of the previous borrowed money from the discounted amount.

③ The Defendant borrowed funds on several occasions from around April 2004 to May 201, 201, and repeated transactions for repayment. From around April 2007 to April 201, the Defendant traded at a discount of the number of promissory notes. Promissory notes issued by B are included in the facts charged under Article 6-7 of the lower judgment.