However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to repay money even if he borrowed money from the injured party due to lack of clear occupation.

The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 1 million from the injured party under the same day as the borrowed money.

In addition, the Defendant’s aforementioned method and the same year from a person who suffered damage under the pretext of the borrowed money, as well as from March 26, 2015.

7. 6.4 million won, Oct. 5, 100,000 won for the same year, Oct. 5, 10,000 won for the 3.22.350,000 won for the same year, Nov. 20, 2011.350,000 won for the same year, Dec. 35, 18.350,000 won for the 350,000 won for the same year; and

2. 350,000 won, and the same year;

4. 20,000 won, and the same year.

4.29.50,00 won, and the same year.

5. A total of KRW 9.60,000,000,000 was issued.

2. Determination of fraud is established by deceiving another person to make a mistake by inducing such act of disposal, and thereby obtaining property or pecuniary advantage. It must be in relation to deception, mistake, and property disposal (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1155, Jun. 27, 200). Whether a certain act constitutes deception that causes a mistake in another person, and whether such deception and disposal of property are in relation to the act of deception should be determined objectively and objectively by taking into account the situation of transaction, the other party’s knowledge, character, experience, occupation, and other specific circumstances at the time of the act (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do1872, Mar. 8, 198, etc.). Based on the above legal principles, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, which can be recognized by health stand-off and evidence, is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant committed deception against the victim.