2. The existence of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial power, environment, content of the crime, process of transaction, and relationship with the victim before and after the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3515, Dec. 10, 2004). Whether such fraud is established shall be determined at the time of the act, and the decision at the time of the act should be made, and the Defendant cannot be punished for fraud on the ground that the change in economic conditions after the act results

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5618 Decided September 25, 2008, etc.). Meanwhile, considering that the purpose of the individual rehabilitation system under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act is to coordinate the legal relations of interested parties with respect to debtors facing distress due to financial difficulties and to promote efficient rehabilitation of debtors, it is necessary to make a more careful judgment in light of the fact that whether a debtor who is exempted from liability through the individual rehabilitation system is recognized as fraud of borrowed money against a debtor who intends to exclude the liability for damages arising from such fraud from the scope of exemption from liability and to promote economic rehabilitation, it may result in breaking or breaking up the debtor's will to

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do8549, Nov. 29, 2007; 2007Do10770, Feb. 14, 2008). Based on the above legal principles, health care units and this case’s health care units are applicable.