2. Determination

A. A. Around March 3, 2012, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case stated that “A real estate real estate agent office operated by the victim H located in Bupyeong-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant would operate an alternative bond office that brokers the bonds to the front line of Seoul viewing and the same business.” On the other hand, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million to the victim.”

However, the intent of fact was to repay the personal debt or use the money received from the victim for the cost of living, and theJ operated by the defendant without any specific property at the time was difficult to the extent of delinquency in the payment of taxes. Therefore, even if it borrowed money from the victim, it did not have the intent or ability to repay it.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received one cashier’s check from the victim under the pretext of borrowing KRW 10 million from the victim, and acquired KRW 40 million through the Defendant’s mother’s bank account (Account Number: L) with the total amount of KRW 50 million.

B. The lower court consistently stated that KRW 5 million deposited by the victim to M was not the down payment of the sales contract for the above NN building, but the amount borrowed by the victim from the Defendant. However, according to the attorney’s non-prosecution decision, in the process of investigating the case in which the Defendant filed a complaint against the victim in relation to the above NN building, the victim stated that KRW 5 million deposited by the Defendant was the down payment of the above NN building sales contract. Thus, if the victim’s statement related to the above NN building is inconsistent, the Defendant is not consistent.