The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On March 31, 2009, the Defendant, at the office operated by the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Defendant on March 31, 2009, lent KRW 50 million as operating expenses for the opening of the office to the Seoul to operate the sales office in order to sell the building in Gyeongnam-gu, Seoul, the Defendant agreed to pay the victim C by April 30, 2009, after the month when he lent the office operating expenses of 50 million won.

However, in fact, the seller was notified of cancellation on October 11, 2006 by the seller and the sales contract was already terminated. The defendant had a debt equivalent to KRW 2.3 million around March 2009, and the defendant was not able to repay the unpaid tax amount of KRW 50 million from the victim even if he borrowed the unpaid tax amount of KRW 40 million around August 2008.

The Defendant was transferred from the victim on April 1, 2009, KRW 50 million to a bank account in the name of the Defendant at the end of the aforementioned false statement.

B. On July 21, 2009, the Defendant stated on July 21, 2009 that “the Defendant would repay the full amount of the loan up to April 30, 2012, on the face of the loan borrowed KRW 20 million.”

However, in fact, the seller was notified of cancellation on October 1, 2006 by the seller of the building for which the defendant was seeking to purchase, and the sales contract had already been terminated, and even if the unpaid tax amount in August 2008 exceeded KRW 400 million, there was no ability to repay it as the promise even if it was additionally borrowed from the victim in excess of KRW 20 million.

The Defendant was transferred from the victim on July 21, 2009 to a bank account in the name of the Defendant at the end of the aforementioned false statement.

In this respect, the defendant deceivings the victim and received a total of KRW 70 million over twice.

2. Determination

A. Whether fraud is established through the defraudation of the relevant legal principles is determined at the time of borrowing. Therefore, even if the defendant had the intent and ability to repay at the time of borrowing, it is merely a civil default, even if the defendant did not repay the borrowed money thereafter.