On November 2008, the Defendant borrowed the amount of KRW 40,000,000,000,000 to the victim.

“.....”

However, the fact is that the defendant is a bad credit holder at the time, and there was no special income, and the defendant thought to use the money for gambling, so even if he receives money from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to pay it.

As above, the Defendant deceivings the victim as shown in the List of Crimes, such as deceiving the victim and receiving KRW 40,000 from the victim in cash, and obtained a total of KRW 26,522,00,000 from November 30, 2014 and acquired the victim by deception by fraud by 39 times in total by November 30, 2014.

Judgment

The defendant's argument Nos. 1 is the fact that the defendant speaks as the victim, but it was borrowed in order to use the funds for the real pre-tax credit, and there was no such statement as stated in the list of crimes.

The Defendant and the victim were related to the victim, and the Defendant sent gambling funds to the victim.

In other words, since the victim has remitted money with the knowledge of these circumstances, the defendant did not have the intention of defraudation.

2. Determination

A. In a consumption lending and lending transaction, in the event that the lender was, or could be, aware of the credit status of the lender and the borrower due to the personal relationship such as the relationship between the lender and the borrower, and the continuous transaction relationship, the lender has anticipated the risk of delay in payment or impossibility of payment in the future, barring any other circumstances, such as the borrower’s expression of falsity as to the material fact that the borrower could decide on whether to grant a consumer loan with respect to the detailed intent of payment, capacity to make a change, the following conditions, etc. at the time of the loan, he/she is merely the fact that the borrower has failed to fully repay the loan, or is guilty of the lender by fraud.