Housing Daegu Dong-gu

Reference domicile Kimcheon-si

The Defendant had the credit card loans worth approximately KRW 50,000,000,000 at the time, and the other personal obligations are about KRW 15,000,000, and even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay it.

From March 21, 2006 to January 17, 2007, when lending KRW 26,000,000 to the victim's house located in Daegu-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu to the effect that "if the victim borrowed KRW 2,00,000 as it is necessary to pay electricity and house taxes to the victim, it shall be paid in 26,000 won per day on a 10-day day by the 100-day day, it shall be delivered from the victim as borrowed money from the Daegu-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si to the victim, as described in the list of crimes in the list of crimes, deceiving the victim over 12 times in total

2. Determination

A. Factual relations

In full view of each statement made by the Defendant and the Victim A in this Court, reference materials submitted by the defense counsel in this Court, each evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, and other circumstances indicated in the records, the following facts can be recognized ( although the victim has made a statement partly inconsistent with the following recognized facts, the victim's statement that is inconsistent with the statements concerning the basic and important matters, such as the amount of damage claimed by the victim, the terms and conditions of lending loans, and the amount of interest paid, is not trusted).

(1) The Defendant, who had been on the gymnasium, has been engaged in a loan transaction from around 202 to around 3 million won by borrowing money from the victim who had been aware of about 20 years ago under the name of funeral, living expenses, husband’s hospital expenses, etc. every time when necessary, from around 2002 to around 50,000 won.

(2) The Defendant borrowed a part of the principal and interest of the borrowed amount daily from the victim in the so-called “one million won loan” form. On the loan of 1 million won, the Defendant paid 1.3 million won a total of 1.3 million won per day by repaying the principal and interest for 100 days. In the form of converting the interest to be paid, 10% per month is reached.

(3) Until the end of 2005, the Defendant paid the principal and interest on the borrowed money from the victim until the end of 2005, as stated in the facts charged.

(4) However, from March 2006 to January 2007, with respect to the instant loan borrowed from around January 2007, only paid only part of the principal and interest in a way that directly pays money to the victim or his/her dependent, or did not repay all the amount in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan. The payment was delayed due to the delay in the time of payment, and the amount repaid up to October 2007 constitutes an amount equivalent to the interest of 10% per month on the instant loan.

(5) When the Defendant’s repayment of the loan was delayed on February 2, 2007, the victim continued to borrow money after demanding the Defendant’s father-C, who was attending the learning place company, to provide a guarantee, and thereafter, the victim sought the above C’s company to collect the amount of money in the amount of KRW 3 million directly.

(6) On March 8, 2007, the injured party delegated by the Defendant, and around March 8, 2007, as the creditor, set up a summary of a notarial deed of debt repayment worth KRW 30 million for the above C as the joint and several surety.

(7) On November 23, 2007, the Defendant filed a petition for bankruptcy by including a debt of KRW 30 million against the victim’s father-and-child B in the list of creditors. On January 18, 2008, the victim filed a complaint against the Defendant for fraud of this case. The Defendant was declared bankrupt on May 19, 2008, and the Defendant was decided to grant immunity from liability by this Court on December 23, 2008.

B. Fraud and mistake and existence of causation

(1) The crime of fraud is established by deceiving another person to omit it in mistake and inducing such act of disposal to acquire property or pecuniary gain by inducing such act of disposal, and there is a causal relationship between the act of deception, mistake, and property disposal.

On the other hand, one of the main objectives of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act is to provide conditions under which a debtor is able to make efforts for economic rehabilitation in the future through pressure due to his or her obligations prior to the declaration of bankruptcy even though he or she was suspended from office at the time of the declaration of bankruptcy, or through plucking or plucking up his or her intention, even before the declaration of bankruptcy. On the other hand, in order to coordinate legal relations among interested parties, such as creditors, etc. and prevent abuse of the bankruptcy system, the court under Article 309 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act may dismiss a petition for bankruptcy if it is deemed that the petition for bankruptcy is not bona fide or constitutes abuse of the bankruptcy procedure. In cases falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 564 (1) of the same Act, the court may allow the refusal of the discharge, and the claim under each subparagraph of Article 566 of the same Act, including "right to claim damages caused by an intentional act by the debtor, which belongs to the bankrupt foundation, is excluded from the discharge of liability for personal rehabilitation by 2070.

(2) As to the instant case, it is difficult for the Defendant to pay interest on the loan by the number of days from 00 to 00. The lender, who borrowed money, mainly with insufficient repayment capacity or bad credit standing, is aware of these circumstances, and the lender who borrowed money with high interest rate of 0 to 0. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts are as follows: (a) the victim was aware of the fact that it was difficult for the Defendant to pay interest on the loan by 00 days from 0 to 00; (b) the victim was unable to use the money from 00 to 20 days after the loan; (c) there was no other evidence that it was difficult for the Defendant to believe that the Defendant had been paid with interest on the loan by 20 days from 0 to 30 days before the loan; and (d) there was no possibility that the Defendant would have been paid with interest on the loan by 20 days from 0 to 20 days before the loan; and (d) there was no possibility that the Defendant would have been aware that it would have been difficult for the Defendant to receive interest on the loan.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the