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

1. The facts charged in this case

A. On October 5, 2014, the Defendant was found to have had no intent or ability to pay the amount properly even if he/she borrowed the money from the injured party due to the lack of any particular property or income as a recipient of basic living, from the welfare center for the disabled, which is located in the 43-47-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-gu.

On October 6, 2014, at around 14:04 on October 6, 2014, Defendant deceiving the victim as above, and then acquired 9:70,000 won from the victim to the agricultural bank account under the name of Defendant.

B. Around December 2014, the defrauded concluded that the above disabled person’s welfare center around December 2014, the Defendant would lend money to the said victim more than a year. However, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the said money to the victim as stated in the foregoing paragraph.

On December 19, 2014, at around 13:08 on December 19, 2014, Defendant deceiving the victim as above, and acquired 2 million won from the victim through the agricultural bank account under the name of Defendant.

2. Determination:

A. The point of time to determine whether there is a criminal intent to acquire money in the establishment of a crime of fraud by borrowing money shall be at the time of the act of borrowing money.

In addition, the circumstances such as whether or not the defendant makes a false statement after the act of borrowing, and the contents of false statement, etc. can serve as a good condition in judging the criminal intent to acquire by deception at the time of the act of borrowing. However, the defendant made a false statement after the act of borrowing.

Therefore, the criminal intent of defraudation at the time of borrowing is not immediately inferred.

B. As to the instant case, the Defendant repaid the respective borrowed money to the victim.

(1) The loan was repaid in full, although any evidence or evidence is not presented to the effect that the loan was fully repaid.

It is argued that the change time and details, and the use of each loan of this case.