However, in fact, the defendant thought that he would use the money borrowed from the victim for his personal purpose, such as living expenses, and the obligation, which was almost 32.6 million won due to the failure to operate the office, led to almost no income, and the above D's 2013 tax of the D's 2013 branch was overdue, and there was no intention or ability to repay it even if he borrowed money from the victim.

Around April 29, 2013, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 20 million from the victim to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant and acquired it by deceiving the victim.

2. Whether fraud is established through deception of borrowed money or not shall be determined at the time of borrowing. Thus, even if the defendant failed to repay the borrowed money at the time of borrowing if he/she had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money due to changes in economic situation, this is merely a non-performance of civil liability, and it cannot be said that a criminal fraud is established. Meanwhile, the existence of the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime, shall be determined by taking into account objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial power, environment, content of the crime, process of transaction, and relationship with the victim, unless the defendant does not

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do10770 Decided February 14, 2008, and 2008Do2893 Decided June 12, 2008, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant operated D Co., Ltd. from August 10, 2007 to August 10, 2007, and the amount of income for the year 2012 reported to the tax authority was 1,761,119.