On December 6, 2013, at the F coffee shop located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, “The Defendant leased KRW 1,50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000)

However, in fact, the Defendant, as a person with bad credit standing at the time, was placed in the name of the J, and did not have any import, and even if he was paid KRW 150,000 from the injured party due to only the claim for the construction cost whose collection was uncertain, he did not have the intent or ability to make a change after three months thereafter, and the above H apartment 1001,00 won, which was provided to the injured party as a collateral for the above KRW 150,000,000, was still pending in civil disputes, and thus it was impossible to repay the above KRW 1,50,000,000,000 to the injured party, there was no intention or ability to transfer ownership to the injured party.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received 150 million won from the victim to the national bank account (K) in the name of the Defendant on the same day, and acquired it by deceiving the victim.

Judgment

1. Whether fraud is established through the defraudation of the borrowed money is determined as at the time of borrowing. Therefore, if the defendant had the intent and ability to repay at the time of borrowing, he did not repay the borrowed money thereafter.

This is merely a mere non-performance of civil liability.