[1] In a case where a policy fund, the condition and purpose of which are limited to the forest purchase fund, is provided with a false contract covering the forest purchase fund, whether the intent to acquire the loan is recognized regardless of whether the intent to repay the loan fund and the ability is satisfied (affirmative)

[2] Whether the act of taking out money by taking out money by borrowing money in excess of the actual amount of policy funds limited to forest purchase funds on the ground that it violates the terms and conditions of the loan and the practice of using the money in violation of the terms and conditions of the loan and the purpose of the loan is a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms

[1] If a loan is a policy loan financed with the special account fund for the structural improvement of agricultural and fishing villages and the conditions and purpose of the loan is limited to the forest purchase fund, and the loan is obtained with a false contract which is less than the actual forest purchase fund, thereby deceiving the loan-handling institution, the intention of defraudation is recognized regardless of whether the defendant has the intent and ability to repay the loan.

[2] Even if the money borrowed from forest purchase fund is not used for the purpose of forest management, it is not recognized that the forestry cooperative or the government has allowed it for the purpose of forest management, or that there is a practice that the borrower of the policy fund uses the fund in violation of the terms and conditions of the loan and the purpose of the loan. Furthermore, even if such a practice exists, it is contrary to the law, and therefore, it cannot be said that the act of defraudation with the loan terms and the purpose of the funds borrowed from forest purchase fund by borrowing more than the actual amount of the policy funds with forest purchase fund is a legitimate act or there is no possibility of

[1] Article 347 of the Criminal Code, Article 13 of the Act on Special Accounts for the Structural Improvement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages / [2] Articles 20 and 347 of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7067 delivered on February 28, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6064 Delivered on October 7, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6026 Delivered on November 10, 2005

Defendant

Defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 2006No867 decided Oct. 19, 2006

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In full view of the evidence admitted by the court below, the loan of this case is a policy loan to foster successors to forestry using the special account fund for structural improvement in agricultural and fishing villages as the financial resources, and its terms and conditions of the loan and its use are limited to the forest purchase fund. In such a case where the conditions and purposes of the loan are limited to the forest purchase fund by submitting a false contract which is less than the actual forest purchase fund, and thereby deceiving the loan-handling institution, it shall be deemed that the defendant had the intention to acquire the loan regardless of whether the defendant had the intent and ability to repay the loan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do7067, Feb. 28, 2003; 2005Do6026, Nov. 10, 2005). According to the evidence established by the court below, it can be recognized that the loan-handling institution constitutes the sales contract of this case as it belongs to the fraudulent submission of the defendant, and it shall not be recognized that the defendant knowingly used the loan for purposes other than the forest purchase fund.

In this regard, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of the crime of this case, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of legal principles as to fraud, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Even if the money borrowed from the forest purchase fund is not used for the purchase of forest land, it has been accepted by the forestry cooperative or the government as long as it is used for the purpose of forestry management, or it cannot be recognized that there is a practice that the borrower of the policy fund uses the fund in violation of the terms and conditions of the loan and its use. Furthermore, even if such a practice exists, it is contrary to the law, and therefore, it cannot be said that the act of the defrauded by the defendant is a legitimate act or there is no possibility of criticism on the ground of such practice. The argument in the

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)