beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On July 17, 2012, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant made a false statement that “the Defendant would repay the principal and interest of the loan each month to the employees in charge of lending to the Korea Savings Bank (hereinafter “victim”) who is the victim through the victim’s lending intermediary company (hereinafter “victim”) by telephone from the Defendant’s residence located in the Namyang-si, Seoul, 2407 Dong 1402 (D building).”
However, even if the loan was received, there was no intention or ability to repay it from the beginning.
The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received three million won as a loan from the victim under the pretext of the loan.
(hereinafter “instant loan”). 2. Determination of the establishment of fraud by defraudation of the loan money should be made at the time of borrowing. Thus, even if the Defendant was able and willing to repay the loan money at the time of borrowing, if the Defendant did not repay the loan money thereafter, it is merely merely a non-performance under civil law, and it cannot be said that criminal fraud is established. The existence of the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, should be determined by taking into account objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial power before and after the crime, environment, content of the crime, process of transaction, and relationship with the victim, unless the Defendant makes a confession.
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in this court, the Defendant was liable for the debt amounting to 7.4 million won, including card theory at the time of the instant loan. In order to repay the debt, the Defendant received a small loan of KRW 12 million in total from the lending company located in four places including the victimized company as of July 17, 2012, in addition to KRW 3.0 million. The Defendant may be recognized as having received the instant loan and filed an application for bankruptcy and exemption on November 2012, 2012.
However, the following circumstances recognized by the above evidence are the same.