The defendant shall be innocent.

1. In the facts charged, the Defendant: (a) was unable to fully pay KRW 40,00,000 for the card purchase price of around 2005, and thereafter became bad credit holders, and thereafter, (b) was prevented from returning the loan from four days from the bond business operator to four days; and (c) despite having no intent or ability to fully repay the principal and interest for the loan from the victim B, the Defendant would pay the loan within ten (10) days if he/she loaned money to the victim at the Da-dong apartment parking lot in Ansan-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on June 4, 2013, notwithstanding the fact that he/she had no intent or ability to fully repay the principal and interest for the loan.

“A false statement to the effect that it was obtained 15,00,000 won from the injured party as a loan, and acquired it through deception, as well as from around that time to September 10, 2013, it acquired 50,500,000 won in total on six occasions, such as the list of crimes in the attached crime list, from around that time.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant, as stated in the facts charged, borrowed money from the injured party, but the defendant did not have any intention to commit fraud.

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles 1) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the financial power of the accused, etc. before and after the crime, the environment, the details and details of the crime, and the process of transaction execution, insofar as the accused does not confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2048, Oct. 21, 1994). The recognition of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value that leads to the conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, so if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the accused, it shall be determined as the benefit of the accused, and the same applies to the recognition of the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do744, May 14, 2004).