beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. On August 29, 2006, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would pay 30,000 money and make a full payment, because he/she made an application for a loan to the Public Official Pension Service,” by phoneing the victim D at an unsound place.
However, it is unclear whether the defendant is entitled to receive additional loans because he has already received a loan from the Public Official Pension Service, and even if he borrows money from the victim due to excessive debts such as bank loans and overdue credit card payments, there was no intention or ability to pay it.
As above, the defendant deceivings the victim as above and acquired 30 million won as the borrowed money from the victim.
2. Determination of the establishment of a crime of fraud by defraudation of the borrowed money should be made at the time of borrowing. Thus, even if the defendant had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money at the time of borrowing, if he did not repay the borrowed money thereafter, this is merely a civil default, and it cannot be said that a criminal fraud is established. Meanwhile, the existence of the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history before and after the crime, environment, content of the crime, the process of performing the transaction, and relationship with
(See Supreme Court Decision 95Do3034 delivered on March 26, 1996. In this case, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from D on August 29, 2006, and the defendant applied for individual rehabilitation on June 11, 2009 as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da40670 delivered on May 6, 201, and the decision to commence individual rehabilitation was recognized.
However, the following circumstances recognized also by the above evidence, i.e., the defendant at the time, the Korea C&C Bank.