However, the defendant had already been liable for excessive debts from financial institutions due to business start-up loans, student loans, and credit card loans, and even if he/she borrowed money without certain incomes, he/she had no intent and ability to repay.

The defendant received three million won from the injured company immediately and acquired it by fraud.

On November 23, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement stating that “The Defendant would pay KRW 142,410 on the 26th day of each month after receiving a loan of KRW 3 million and KRW 142,410 on the 26th day of each month” to the employees in the name payment of the Victim Gambling Savings Bank, which was located in Yangyang-dong 2, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Seoul, Yangyang-dong 29-23.

However, the defendant was granted a loan of 37,30,000 won at the 7th financial institutions at the time, and the Korea Technology Finance Corporation has a debt of 50,000,000 won and there was no intention or ability to repay the debt even if he received a loan from the victim

The Defendant was given a loan of three million won from the victim, namely, at the seat of the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. The defendant's assertion that the defendant and his defense counsel did not intend to repay the loans of this case by operating the three companies that are overseas purchasing agencies, but as they were investigated due to suspicion of violating the Customs Act, they did not discontinue the management of the above companies and did not pay the loans of this case, and they did not have the intention of defraudation.

3. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the judgment of fraud, is not the confession of the defendant, so long as the defendant does not make a confession, the history and content of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of performing transactions