However, in fact, at the time, the defendant was liable for personal debts exceeding KRW 1 billion, and the (State)F, which the defendant operated, was also liable for the decrease of the above F's sales, and there was no intention or ability to repay the principal and interest as agreed, even if he borrowed money from the victim, due to the circumstances where the above F's sales have decreased.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received from the victim KRW 50 million on April 21, 201, KRW 50 million on April 30, 201, KRW 50 million on or around July 12, 2010, KRW 100 million on or around December 23, 2010, KRW 10 million on or around December 23, 201, KRW 10 million on or around February 11, 201, and KRW 550 million on or around March 11, 201, and acquired the money as the borrowed money.

2. The Defendant and his defense counsel did not make a false statement to C concerning the property status or management status of the company in order to borrow funds, or made C deceiving the complainant E (hereinafter “Appellant”) and had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money when receiving the borrowed money.

3. Determination

A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, is to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details and details of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction execution, unless the Defendant makes a confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2048, Oct. 21, 1994). Meanwhile, there is no room for a judge to make a reasonable doubt.