2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that there are circumstances requiring a strong doubt about the ability to repay, such as having a large amount of debt owed to the Defendant at the time of borrowing the instant loan, but it is difficult to deem that there was no reasonable doubt in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by the lower court.

1) The Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million on two occasions prior to borrowing the instant borrowed money, and maintained a continuous financial transaction with the victim, such as paying interest and the borrowed money, etc. (2) In light of the victim’s statement in the court below’s original decision, it appears that the Defendant’s business was performed well while knowing that the Defendant’s business was not adequate at the time, and that the Defendant lent the said money to the Defendant with business funds.

3) As to the repayment period of the instant loan, the Defendant asserted that the date of repayment was not fixed, and that he would pay the construction cost immediately. However, in full view of the fact that there was no particular document, etc., as to the repayment period of the said loan, and the victim stated to the effect that the said loan was lent out of the business fund, it is difficult to conclude that the payment period was determined as indicated in the facts charged. 4) The Defendant appears to have used most of the borrowed money borrowed from the victim as above as expenses related to the construction project performed by D.

5) At the time of borrowing the instant loan, the Defendant stated that the Defendant created a security right on the land that is different from the initial agreement with the victim, but it was set up a mortgage on the land with a higher security value. 6)