The term "I would promptly pay the down payment to the maximum extent possible by borrowing the down payment with the cash at present."

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the F Contract even if he borrowed the money from the damaged party due to the lack of contract acceptance.

On January 21, 2014, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 18 million from the victim to the Agricultural Bank Account in the name of the Defendant’s wife G to receive KRW 18 million from the victim.

2. Determination

A. At the time when the Defendant borrowed KRW 18 million from the injured party on January 21, 2014, the Defendant ordered the F Contract for Construction to the victim at the time of borrowing the KRW 18 million.

Since there is no warning, the victim is not a money by deceiving the victim, but at that time the victim is not a money, and since the lending principle from the lending company is being repaid normally over a long time on behalf of the victim by the defendant in order to lend the 18 million won to the defendant, it is argued that there is no intention to commit fraud.

B. Although there is no doubt about the Defendant’s change of the circumstance and time, etc. leading up to the Defendant’s statement that the Defendant “the Defendant would receive the F Contract Construction Contract and receive the down payment,” the Defendant had the criminal intent of deceiving the victim or deceiving the defrauded as in the facts charged in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court.

It is difficult to readily conclude, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(1) The victim, at an investigative agency, ordered the defendant to find and work F works when working at a D cafeteria on January 1, 2014 by the victim.

If a person lends money, he/she will receive the down payment of the construction work and repay it as soon as possible.

J. 2.0