사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was given a loan from the Hyundai Savings Bank Co., Ltd. and was discharged from military service in order to make up for the loan, and the repayment of the loan was delayed due to the failure to seek a new workplace. At the time of the loan, the Defendant did not deceiving a person in charge of the loan of the victim at the time of the loan, nor did the Defendant have the intent and ability to repay the loan, and thus, the Defendant
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On May 10, 2013, the Defendant agreed to obtain a loan of KRW 23 million on the condition that he/she would repay the total amount of KRW 745,541 per month principal and interest during the 60-month period, by applying for a loan to an employee in charge of the borrowed name in the office of Hyundai Savings Bank, Inc., Ltd. located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Samsungdong 9-1.
However, in fact, the Defendant was in difficult condition to pay interest and living expenses for KRW 80 million as the Defendant’s wage at the time, and the Defendant was also obligated to retire, and thus, there was no intention or ability to pay the loan according to the agreement even if the Defendant was to receive the loan from the injured party.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim, received the money of KRW 23 million from the victim on May 10, 2013 to the post office account in the name of the Defendant.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the basis of the evidence indicated in its holding.
(c)
1) Determination on whether fraud is established through the defraudation of the borrowed money by the relevant legal doctrine is determined as at the time of borrowing. As such, if the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay at the time of borrowing, then the Defendant failed to repay the borrowed money thereafter.
This is merely a mere non-performance of civil liability.