2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is that the Defendant would pay 10% interest if he/she lends money to the victim C as he/she is in need of money from the party branch of Hanjin-gu, Hanjin-gu, Seoul, to the victim at around December 2010, and the principal would be repaid within one month. The Defendant received KRW 9 million from the victim around that time.

However, in fact, the Defendant was a bad credit holder and was liable for personal debt amounting to KRW 90 million, and there was no intent or ability to repay the debt even if he borrowed money from the victim as above.

As above, the Defendant received a total of KRW 59 million from May 10, 2012, including the Defendant’s receipt of KRW 9 million by deceiving the victim, from that time until May 10, 2012.

B. The court below held that according to the evidence adopted and examined by the original court, in particular the victim's legal statement, each of the money listed in Nos. 1 through 6 in the annexed crime sight table is the money borrowed from D under the victim's guarantee; the money listed in Nos. 7 in the above crime sight table is the money borrowed from E and F under the victim's guarantee; and each of the money listed in Nos. 8 and 9 in the above crime sight table is the money remitted to the defendant's side by receiving the money from the defendant's third party; the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant borrowed the above money from the victim; and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise.

C. The judgment of the court below is legitimate.