Even if unlike this, the defendant had the intent and ability to pay money to the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. The victim's statement whether the defendant borrowed money from the victim is consistent with the main contents of the statement, and there is no unreasonable or contradictory part of the statement in light of the empirical rule, and there is no motive or reason to make a false statement unfavorable to the defendant, and as long as the motive or reason to make a false statement is not clearly revealed, there is a difference in the expression, or the first conclusive statement was changed to a somewhat unclear statement, the credibility of the statement should not be rejected without any special reason.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5407 Decided November 23, 2006, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, witness E (victim) and F’s legal statement, the court below acknowledged the fact that the Defendant borrowed money to the Defendant to the Defendant’s bank account in the name of G, his/her husband, from among November 201, 2014, to the effect that he/she would repay the money to the Defendant because he/she is required to pay the credit card payment to the Defendant, and that the money deposited in the deposit account in the name of G, from around November 20, 2014 to March 23, 2015, he/she received KRW 33 million in total ( KRW 10 million around November 20, 2014, KRW 300 million around December 15, 2014, KRW 300,3005,300,000,000 won around December 15, 2014).

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the above witness's statement has no credibility.

However, the court below can be seen by the evidence duly adopted and examined.