However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any specific property since around May 201, 201, due to the card payment debt amounting to KRW 20 million, credit loan debt amounting to KRW 20 million, KRW 30 million, KRW 20 million, KRW 20 million, and KRW 30 million loan debt amounting to KRW 20 million. Thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay even if he borrowed KRW 30 million from the victim.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received money (including prior interest) from the victim to the bank account (D) in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim to take the property by deceiving the victim.

2. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the judgment of fraud, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, details and contents of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction execution, unless the defendant is led to confession

In addition, the conviction should be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt about the defendant's guilt, it should be determined with the benefit of the defendant. The same applies to the recognition of the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of fraud.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do12, Oct. 14, 2005). In addition, the establishment of fraud by defraudation of the borrowed money shall be determined at the time of borrowing.