The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant’s claim for the refund of deposit on deposit basis cannot be used to pay the instant loan obligations by exercising immediately, and thus, cannot be considered to determine the Defendant’s ability to repay the loan obligations. The Defendant also recognized that the investigative agency did not have the ability to repay by stating that “the monthly income was approximately KRW 2 million but there is no interest, etc. paid.” In full view of the fact that the Defendant applied for commencement of rehabilitation procedures only for several months after receiving the instant loan, the causal relationship between the defrauded’s act of deception and the instant loan can be acknowledged.

Facts of recognition

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts can be acknowledged:

At the time of receiving a loan from the victim, the Defendant was working in Celecommunication Co., Ltd., and received approximately KRW 2070,000 each month, and the Defendant also told the employees in charge of the victim company.

The victim company received personal credit information from the credit information company prior to the end of lending to the defendant, and the data showed both the defendant's bank, mutual savings bank, and credit card company's loan obligations and default obligations.

There is no circumstance that the defendant has concealed an important fact that may affect the determination of his/her credit, such as that he/she was liable for a large amount of debt other than those stated in the above data.

Judgment

The Defendant provided a victim company with true data about the workplace and monthly income, and did not notify other important facts in loan transactions, and as long as the victim company specializing in credit investigation and the subsequent loan and collection are determined to make a loan by evaluating the Defendant’s credit by itself, such as confirming that the Defendant was provided with the personal credit information, the Defendant is deemed to have belonged to the victim company.