On May 26, 2014, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the Defendant would pay 1% interest per month on the loan to the victim for the shortage of funds from leaving the above E fishing ground, and pay the principal before the termination of the contract with the victim,” at the above E fishing ground closed office located in Tong-si, Dong-si.

However, in fact, the above E was in excess of the active property, and it was possible to repay the borrowed amount only through the above E’s operation because it was not owned by the Defendant, but was possible to repay the borrowed amount only through the above E’s operation. There was a loss of KRW 400 million in operation in the immediately preceding year, and the result of operation was uncertain, and since it was impossible to continuously operate the above E as it bears interest liability equivalent to KRW 20 million every month, it was impossible to repay the borrowed amount from the damaged party.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim, shall be KRW 50 million on the 28th day of the same month from the victim, for the purpose of borrowing money, and the same year.

6. 18. The person received 30 million won as the same loan and acquired it through the account in the name of each E in the same name.

2. Determination at the time of the establishment of a crime of fraud is based on the determination at the time of the act. As such, if a borrower has an intent and ability to repay money at the time of borrowing and lending transactions, even if he/she fails to repay money thereafter, this is merely a non-performance of civil liability, and criminal fraud is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14516, Apr. 2, 2016). The conviction in a criminal trial ought to be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have the authenticity of the facts charged to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and even if there is no such proof.