The defendant, a foreign national with a prior record of nighttime residential burglary, had received transfers of money and coins totaling more than KRW 100 million from the victims, telling them he could generate large profits through cryptocurrency futures trading. The victims regarded this as a 'loan' and, after suffering losses, filed a Fraud complaint against the defendant. The charge focused on the claim that the defendant, despite having neither the ability nor the intention to repay from the outset, concealed this fact, deceived the victims and obtained the money by fraud.

From the early stages of the case, I focused on the point that the victims had not 'lent' money to the defendant but had 'invested' in the defendant's cryptocurrency trading. I emphasized the investment nature of the transactions, citing the facts that the victims knew the defendant's financial situation, that no promissory notes were drawn up, and that there was no clear agreement on when profits would be settled. Notably, one of the victims even testified that she had directly witnessed the defendant's trading results up close and voluntarily handed over the money. I also pointed to the time gap between when the defendant suffered losses and when he began to lie, and to the fact that the direct cause of the depleted investment funds was an exchange error, rebutting the Prosecution's claim that he had 'intended to deceive from the start.' In the end, the court found it difficult to conclude that the defendant had the intent to defraud and acquitted him. This case was a representative example showing that a transaction cannot be branded fraud merely because a loss occurred.