Around May 26, 2008, the Defendant paid the principal to the victim D with interest on two occasions when he/she borrowed the money that the husband needs business funds, and paid the principal within one month when he/she requested repayment.

“.........”

However, the Defendant owned the amount of KRW 50 million at the market price of Gangdong-gu, Seoul E apartment 101 Dong 307, but on the above apartment, the mortgage was established with the maximum amount of KRW 332,80,000,000, and the husband was liable for the monetary debt equivalent to KRW 230,000,000,000,000. On September 1, 2007, the husband was under the business operated in Korea and operated the clothing business with another person after the closure of the business, but even if there was a shortage of money to repay the borrowed money, there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money.

Nevertheless, on May 26, 2008, the Defendant: (a) made a false statement to the above victim; (b) received KRW 12 million from the said victim’s new bank account under the name of the Defendant on May 26, 2008; and (c) subsequently, until September 30, 201, the Defendant acquired KRW 172,00,000 in total from five persons, such as the victim D, victim F, victim G, victim H, and victim I, in the same way as the list of crimes, from September 30, 201.

2. Determination:

A. Determination at the time of the establishment of a crime of fraud is based on the point of time of the act. As such, if a borrower has an intent and ability to repay money at the time of lending money in a consumption lending transaction, even if the borrower fails to repay money thereafter, this is merely a non-performance of civil liability, and a criminal fraud is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14516, Apr. 2, 2016). B. In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court.