However, at the time, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to repay the loan even if he was given a loan of KRW 20 million.

The defendant acquired a loan of 14 million won from the damaged company to the new bank account (D) in the name of the defendant.

2. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant’s assertion is merely a failure to repay a loan as he was dismissed from a company which could not be anticipated after the instant loan contract, and there was no intention to acquire it by fraud.

B. Whether fraud is established through the deception of the borrowed money is determined at the time of borrowing. Therefore, if the defendant had the intent and ability to repay at the time of borrowing, he did not repay the borrowed money thereafter.

Even if this is merely a mere non-performance of civil liability, it cannot be said that criminal fraud is established. On the other hand, the existence of the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, should be determined by considering objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history before and after the crime, environment, contents of the crime, transaction execution process, relationship with the victim, etc. unless the defendant makes a confession.

One of the main objectives of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act is to provide a situation in which the debtor is able to make efforts for economic rehabilitation in the future through pressure due to his/her obligations prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, or plucking up his/her will, through the discharge of obligations prior to the declaration of bankruptcy, even though he/she was suspended for the distribution of all his/her own property at the time of the declaration of bankruptcy.

However, the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act is a creditor, etc.