beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The Defendant is a person who works at a second power plant of the CF in the residence of the facts charged.
The defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the loan even if he/she received the loan from the Lao Liber Loan Co., Ltd. that is a complainant company.
Nevertheless, around May 13, 2011, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that the Defendant would pay the loan without a mold as agreed in the company, if he/she made a telephone to the NAomangy Loan Co., Ltd. on the 12th floor of the building in the Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu 890-16 Ground Lice Building and made a loan to the NAomangy Loan Co., Ltd.
As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the complainant, received 5 million won from the complainant to the bank account of the Defendant, and acquired pecuniary benefits.
2. The summary of the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion, like the facts charged in this case, was remitted to five million won by the complainant, and the defendant was responsible for a considerable amount of debt at that time. However, in light of the circumstances surrounding the loan of this case, it is possible to repay the principal and interest of the defendant's monthly obligation with the salary (average 580 million won per month) received at that time. In addition, there was no deception by the defendant.
3. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the judgment of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account 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.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below’s determination that the Defendant borrowed KRW 5 million from other financial institutions on May 13, 201, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, to the extent that the Defendant borrowed KRW 230 million from other financial institutions prior to receiving a loan from the complainant, as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, and that the Defendant borrowed KRW 5 million from the complainant on May 13, 201 and received KRW 24 million from five loan companies on the same day.