The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On October 9, 2010, the Defendant borrowed money from the office D Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., Ltd., Co.,, Ltd., Ltd., Co.,, Ltd., Ltd., Co., Ltd., Ltd., Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., Co., Ltd., Ltd., Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, with no intent or ability to repay the money from time, and if he/she borrowed KRW 30 million to the victim E, he/she had the victim deceiving as if he/she was

2. Determination

A. First, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize whether the Defendant had no “author” to repay the above money at the time of borrowing the money.

B. Next, despite the fact that the defendant was unable to repay the above money at the time of borrowing it, we examine whether the defendant deceiving E as if he had such ability and then acquired the amount borrowed from E.

The act of deception, which is the constituent element of the crime of fraud, under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, requires that it constitutes an act contrary to the good faith principle that should be widely observed in the transactional relationship, and causing mistake to the other party. Even if the defendant at the time was unable to repay the instant loan within a short period, if the defendant lent money to the defendant while he fully aware of such circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the defendant deceivings E.

However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone makes a mistake about E in relation to the ability to repay.

It is insufficient to view that E has leased money to the defendant due to a mistake in the defendant's ability to repay.

Rather, according to the trial and records, although E is sufficiently aware that it is not an address to repay borrowed money within a short time due to the economic situation of the defendant at the time, it is expected that the defendant will assist his own business in the future and deliver money to the defendant.