On August 20, 2013, the Defendant loaned KRW 100 million to the victim's ‘I' factory operated by the victim H in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and the victim' factory operation funds are urgently needed, and the principal shall be paid on the 25th of each month, and the principal shall be repaid until January 25, 2014.

The phrase " was made to the effect that it was".

However, the facts are as follows: (a) at the time when the Defendant was the Defendant’s name; (b) KRW 350 million; (c) KRW 130 million; (d) KRW 480,000,000,000 under the name of J; and (e) KRW 150,000; (c) KRW 150,000; and (d) KRW 150,000; and (e) KRW 150,000; (c) there was no particular property; (d) the obligation against the purchaser; (e) the obligation against the counterparty was merely a bad credit term claim that is difficult to be repaid; and (e) the obligation was insufficient to repay the existing obligation with the profits of E; and (e) there was no need for the Defendant to operate E while continuing to operate E; and (e) there was no intention or ability to change the obligation even if having borrowed money from the damaged party.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received a total of KRW 100 million, including KRW 30 million around August 20, 2013, and KRW 70 million around August 23, 2013, from the victim to the corporate bank account in the name of F, under the pretext of borrowing money.

2. Determination:

A. Determination of the establishment of a crime of fraud by defraudation of the borrowed money should be made at the time of borrowing. Therefore, if the defendant had the intent and ability to repay at the time of borrowing, he did not pay the borrowed money thereafter.

Even if this is not just a simple non-performance of civil liability, it is criminal.