However, the Defendant had no intention or ability to pay interest, etc. as agreed even if he borrowed money from the victim because the Defendant maintained the household by receiving cash services from the credit card company at his husband’s economic cost, such as the husband’s hospital fee, etc.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 30 million from the victim, namely, from the seat of the victim, and received KRW 225,00,000 from the time to June 20, 2014, a total of 10 times, as shown in the attached Table of Crimes, from June 20, 2014.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant and the defense counsel had the intent and ability to repay each of the instant money at the time of borrowing the money, the Defendant was merely unable to repay the borrowed money due to the aggravation of economic circumstances by paying the agreed interest. Therefore, the Defendant did not have the intent to commit fraud.

B. (1) In a loan for consumption, if the lender was aware of the credit standing of the borrower and could have anticipated, or could have anticipated, the risk of delay in repayment or impossibility of repayment due to the recognition of such personal relationship as the relationship between the lender and the borrower, etc., in the loan for consumption, barring any other circumstance, such as the borrower’s expression of falsity as to material facts that could have been determined as to the loan for consumption with respect to the detailed intent of repayment, ability to repay, conditions of loan, etc. at the time of the loan, the borrower deceivings the lender about his ability to repay, solely on the basis of the fact that the borrower

shall not be readily concluded that there is a criminal intent to obtain fraud from the borrower.

Supreme Court Decision 200