The judgment below

The conviction part is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Fraud is established by deceiving another person to make a mistake by inducing such act of deception and thereby acquiring property or pecuniary advantage. It must be related to deception, mistake, and property disposal (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1155, Jun. 27, 200). Whether a certain act constitutes deception that causes others to be entered in mistake, and whether such deception and disposal of property are in a relationship between such act of deception and disposal of property should be determined objectively and objectively by taking into account the specific circumstances at the time of the act such as transaction, the other party’s knowledge, character, experience, occupation, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do1872, Mar. 8, 198, etc.). In addition, the intent of deception by deception as an intentional act of deception should be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial power, environment, content of the crime, process of transaction, and relationship between the victim and the victim before and after the crime unless the Defendant confession was made (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do3564, Mar. 36, 196).

Therefore, if the lender is aware of the credit standing of the lender and the borrower in the consumption lending transaction, and the risk of delayed repayment or impossibility of repayment is anticipated or may be anticipated, due to the continuous transaction relationship between the lender and the borrower, it can be determined whether the borrower has used the consumption lending in relation to the specific intent of repayment, capacity to change, and the following terms and conditions at the time of borrowing.