The defendant is a corporate cause. The defendant bears approximately KRW 30 million to KRW 40 million on August 2002, while he does not have any special property and borrows money from the victim non-indicted 3, even if he did not have any intention or ability to repay the money.

A. On August 11, 2002, the victim’s house located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City ( Address 1 omitted) states that “A person would repay the principal and interest without molding the principal and interest if he/she lends 20 million won,” and that person in this context obtains 20 million won from the victim on the same page as the borrowed money;

B. Around September 11, 2002, at the same place, the victim made a false statement to the effect that “if money is paid, the victim may receive money by selling the goods, but only if money is given, a profit would be given if a profit would be given, and the interest would not be given if it would be difficult to do so.” Accordingly, the victim received KRW 15 million from the victim on the same place as the loan, and the victim acquired it by fraud.

2. Determination

A. Key issue

The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant had the intent to defraud the Defendant at the time of the instant loan, and whether the Defendant borrowed 20 million won from the victim on September 11, 2002.

B. Determination

The burden of proving the existence of an intentional act, which is a subjective element of the crime alleged in the indictment, is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence with probative value that leads a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the defendant (Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8726 Decided August 21, 2008).

According to the records, around August 2002, the defendant owned 64 million won of the market price of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City ( Address 2 omitted). However, around June 2002, the defendant provided the above apartment as collateral and borrowed 40 million won from the community credit cooperatives as collateral and provided the above apartment as collateral on August 29, 2002, and repaid 50 million won to the above community credit cooperatives. In addition, on August 2002, the defendant was also liable to pay 30 million won of the above community credit cooperatives such as Cho Ho Bank, etc., and around February 2004, the defendant issued a promissory note with a face value of 35 million won to the victim, and around May 13, 2007, the defendant provided the victim with a loan of 40 million won to the victim with a net interest of 2 million won to the effect that he received 9 million won of the loan from the investigative agency, but it was difficult for the victim to pay 2 million won of the loan."

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, namely, from September 27, 2002 to September 2003, the Defendant appears to have paid KRW 23,959,00 to the victim immediately after the above borrowing, and the Defendant alleged that at least part of the above money was remitted to repay the principal and interest of the loan of this case. It is reasonable to view that the Defendant was engaged in the clothing retail business from March 2002 to June 2005, and the Defendant was as an examinee from April 200 to December 2003. The Defendant did not have the capacity to collect money continuously for a considerable period of time after borrowing the loan of this case, and the Defendant did not have the capacity to conclude that the Defendant was not guilty of the money from the victim with the intent of 100,000 won or 100,000 won with the intent of 10,000 won or 20,000 won with the intent of 10,000 won or 20,00 won with the victim’s intent to borrow money from the victim.

Judges Kim Sang-sung