“...”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have active and fixed income without any intention or ability to pay principal and interest, even if he borrowed money from the damaged person in order to lend money to a third party with whom the changed power is unknown.

On the fourth trial date, the prosecutor applied for permission to amend the Bill of Indictment as above, and this court permitted it.

The defendant shall belong to the defendant on January 26, 2014 from the damaged person.

4. 21. Each delivery of KRW 1 million, a sum of KRW 2 million, by deceiving the victim, and received property.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the argument is consistent with the receipt of money from the injured party as stated in the facts charged, but the defendant was engaged in a job at the time of receiving money from the injured party and had some degree of financial status and did not receive money from D, thereby resulting in this case. Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of fraud.

B. Whether fraud is established through the deception of the borrowed money should be determined at the time of the loan. Thus, if the defendant had the intent and ability to repay at the time of the loan, even if he refuses to repay the borrowed money in full after the loan, it is merely a non-performance of civil liability, and it cannot be said that criminal fraud is established. Meanwhile, unless the defendant does not confession, the existence of the criminal intent of the defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial power, environment, contents of the crime, the process of transaction, and relationship with the victim (Supreme Court Decision 95Do3034 delivered on March 26, 1996).