However, the vehicle borrowed by the defendant is not operated normally due to the borrower's failure to obtain the borrower's consent on his/her operation with the vehicle borrowed money and entrusted as a security. Since the defendant thought that he/she has no specific property and has used the money in a different place, there was no intention or ability to refund the deposit to the victim after one year.

Nevertheless, on September 16, 2014, the Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim E, received KRW 5 million from the victim to the company bank account (F) account under the name of the Defendant on September 16, 2014, and acquired KRW 195,750,000 from the seven victims, such as the list of crimes in attached Form from the Si to September 18, 2015.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel did not deceiving victims as stated in the facts charged, and there was no intention to obtain the above 195,750,000 won from the defendant.

3. Determination

A. The scope of defraudation, which is a subjective element of fraud, shall be determined by whether there was an intention to make a transaction from a complainant by making a false statement about the complainant, even though there was no intent and ability to repay to the defendant as at the time of transaction. In a case where it was capable at the time of transaction but fails to perform it after the change in economic circumstances, etc., it is merely a non-performance of a civil obligation, and it does not constitute a crime of fraud under the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5265, Jan. 24, 2003, etc.).