The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the loan even if the Defendant was given the loan from the victim non-Es Capital Co., Ltd.

Nevertheless, on May 26, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to repay KRW 212,230,00,000 including the principal and interest (41.99% per annum) on June 6, 201, to the lending counseling staff from the victim.

On May 27, 2011, the Defendant received 5 million won from the victim as the head of the Tong under the name of the Defendant and acquired it by money under the name of the loan.

(2) On the other hand, the defendant and his defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense of this case's loan and defense counsel's defense counsel'

3. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the judgment of fraud, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, details and contents of the crime before and after the crime, and the process of transaction execution, unless the defendant is led to confession

In addition, the conviction should be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt about the defendant's guilt, it should be determined with the benefit of the defendant. The same applies to the recognition of the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of fraud.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do12 Decided October 14, 2005, etc.). Moreover, the establishment of fraud by defraudation of the borrowed money should be determined at the time of borrowing. Thus, if the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay at the time of borrowing, it is merely a civil case, even if the Defendant failed to repay the borrowed money thereafter.