A. Although the victim was aware of the fact that it is difficult for the Defendant to operate the Defendant at the time of lending money to the Defendant, at the time, the Defendant did not have the ability to pay money to the victim while operating the Defendant normally even if he borrowed money from the victim. Nevertheless, the Defendant deceivings the victim about his ability to pay money, and the victim lent money to the Defendant’s belief that “if he lends money, he can facilitate the operation of the company.”

B. In the case of paragraphs (2) through (4) of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant deceivings the victim regarding the method of repayment in detail, and the victim lends money to the Defendant at his end, and the Defendant also recognized the above contents by the prosecution, and the victim consistently asserted it by the investigative agency.

C. As can be seen, even if the causal relationship between the Defendant’s deception, deception and property disposal act was recognized, the lower court acquitted the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on fraud and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment

2. Determination

A. The Defendant in the facts charged in this case is the representative director of D in the Hanam-si. The facts did not have any particular property, D had been liable for KRW 600 million, and D had already been liable for the obligation of KRW 100 million to the companies that supplied materials to D. The Defendant had already been due, and the Defendant had not been fully paid the transaction companies with respect to the claim for the sales proceeds and the claim for the construction payment that he had paid from the transaction companies, and the Defendant had to pay the amount of money received from the transaction companies and pay the Defendant.