On September 11, 2013, the Defendant: (a) at a coffee shop in Jung-gu, Daejeon; (b) on September 11, 2013, the Defendant acquired money from the Defendant’s agricultural bank account on the 12th of the same month; and (c) the Defendant acquired money from KRW 20 million by borrowing KRW 10 million from the Defendant’s agricultural bank account on the 10th of the same month, by: (a) the Defendant did not have any particular income if he was excluded from living expenses by receiving monthly wage not exceeding KRW 1 million; and (b) the right to claim the return of apartment lease deposit that was leased was provisionally attached to the obligee; and (c) the Defendant was anticipated to be able to receive the loan from the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the loan.

2. As to the judgment, the Defendant did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation at the time of borrowing the instant money, but is merely a failure of the Defendant’s business to repay the said money due to bad faith.

However, insofar as the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, is not a confession by the defendant, it is inevitable to determine by comprehensively taking account of objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, details and details of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction execution, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do12, Oct. 14, 2005). Meanwhile, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that leads the judge to feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt of guilt against the defendant.