The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

Around February 28, 2010, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant, at the D office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul) around February 28, 2010, lent KRW 25 million to the victim E as if the victim requests the return of the money.

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant did not have any special property other than the claim for construction cost difficult to recover, so even if he borrowed money from the victim, he did not have any intent or ability to repay it.

Around March 8, 2010, the Defendant was transferred from the victim to the bank account in the name of the Defendant’s female-friendly F in the name of the Defendant’s managing KRW 25 million under the name of the Defendant’s loan.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Judgment

The defendant asserts that he borrowed KRW 25 million from the victim, but he did not have any intention or ability to repay from the time of borrowing.

The establishment of fraud through the defraudation of the borrowed money shall be determined at the time of the borrowing. As such, even if the defendant had the intent and ability to repay the borrowed money at the time of the borrowing, even if it is impossible to repay the borrowed money due to changes in economic conditions thereafter, this is merely a civil default, and it cannot be said that a criminal fraud is established.

On the other hand, unless the defendant makes a confession, the intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, contents of the crime, the process of transaction, the relationship with the victim, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do2844, Jun. 11, 2015). Before examining the instant case, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the victim E’s investigative agency, which corresponds to the instant facts charged, is stated, and “self-reliance with the Defendant and the human body company.”