The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

around August 20, 2013, the Defendant stated that “If 30 million won is lent, 15 million won is repaid until September 2, 2013, 2013, the Defendant would repay 15 million won until September 12, 2013, and repay 15 million won by September 12, 2013.”

However, at that time, the Defendant had approximately KRW 50 million loans and investment worth KRW 200,000,000,000. After commencement of the above planned real estate business, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the loan even if he borrowed money from the victim, since there was no other arrangement that was made after commencement of the above planned real estate business. In addition, approximately KRW 30,000,000 should be paid monthly to its employees.

The Defendant received 30 million won from the victim to the new bank account in the name of E.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. Determination

A. In a loan transaction for consumption conducted in the course of carrying out a business, where the default was predicted in advance, and the existence of a criminal fraud against the business operator becomes a problem, the mere fact that the business operator predicteds it to be able to go bankrupt at the time of the loan, depending on the circumstances, is the same as the determination of the criminal intent according to the outcome of the occurrence of the crime. In addition, since it does not coincide with the actual economic situation, it is difficult to raise funds as a corporate manager, even if it is intended to continue to make efforts to continue to exist in order to maintain the business, even if it is erroneous to believe that it is difficult to raise funds as a corporate manager, it would result in a situation of bankruptcy.