The telephone calls made a call to “to repay the monthly income of 2.5 million won, without a mold,” which reads “to repay the monthly income of 300,000 won.”

However, at the time, the Defendant was liable for a number of million won at financial institutions, and the Defendant was to receive KRW 80,000 per day, not monthly pay, and was working intermittently at cleaning companies, and there was no intention or ability to pay the loan normally even if he was given the loan.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 3 million won from the victim to the account under the name of the Defendant on the same day, and acquired it by deceiving the victim.

2. Determination

A. In a consumer lending and lending transaction, where the lender was, or could be, aware of the credit standing of the lender and the borrower, due to the personal relationship such as the relationship between the lender and the borrower as well as the continuous transaction relationship, and the risk of delay in the future or impossibility of repayment is anticipated, barring any other circumstances, such as the borrower’s awareness of the credit standing of the lender, that there was the intent of deceiving the lender as to the capacity of repayment with only the fact that the borrower has failed to fully repay the loan and lending, or that there was fraud by fraud, unless there were other circumstances, such as the borrower stated that there was a false fact about the material fact that the borrower had determined whether the borrower would have been able to make

It cannot be readily concluded (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14516, Apr. 28, 2016). (b) Of the facts charged in this case, the Defendant’s telephone call to the victim and stated that “the Defendant would repay the monthly income of KRW 2,500,000,000 without a molding the loan of KRW 3 million,” is whether the act constitutes a deceptive act or the Defendant has the intention of deception.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize it.