The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On December 21, 2016, the injured party B Co., Ltd., on the charge of the provisional seizure of claims by the Seoul Eastern District Court, the third debtor C Co., Ltd., D, and E Co., Ltd., and the debtor F Co., Ltd., Ltd. (the representative director) ordered provisional seizure of claims amounting to KRW 52,841,841.

On December 2, 2016, the Defendant withdrawn provisional attachment set up in each card company of which sales amount is deposited, from around March 1, 2017, to H, the representative of the victim company, at the F Trading Center located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. From around March 1, 2017, the amount of the goods unpaid.

8. To make payment in installments for six months until March 31.

Along on January 2, 2017, this paper written a false statement to the effect that "the price for goods" was written.

However, even if the victim company terminates provisional attachment, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the price in installments as the content of the provisional attachment.

Nevertheless, on January 3, 2017, the Defendant deceiving the victim company and caused the victim company to file an application for cancellation of provisional seizure with the Seoul Eastern District Court on January 3, 2017, and sent a notice of cancellation to each credit card company on January 5, 2017, thereby acquiring an unproperty interest in the market price.

2. Determination

A. The intention of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, of the relevant legal doctrine, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant’s re-satisfy, environment, content of the crime, process of transaction, relationship with the victim, etc. before and after the

In the civil monetary lending relationship, the intention of defraudation of the borrowed money can not be acknowledged, but in the case of borrowing the money by pretending to be repaid even though the defendant has no intention of full repayment or has no ability to repay within the due date as promised at the time of repayment, the intention of defraudation may be recognized.

Supreme Court Decision 2017Do20682 Decided August 1, 2018