A. The victim of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are aware of the fact that E (hereinafter “E”) sent to D (hereinafter “instant corporation”) a public document demanding the withdrawal from the waste collection center prior to the conclusion of the instant transfer contract. As such, the Defendant was not obligated to notify the victim again at the time of entering into the instant transfer agreement. Even if the duty of disclosure is acknowledged, the causal relationship between the Defendant’s deception and the victim’s losses is not recognized.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of mistake of fact

A. The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to any affirmative or passive act that widely lacks the fiduciary duty and good faith to each other in the transactional relationship. It is sufficient to say that it does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, and it is sufficient to establish the basis of judgment for an actor to make a disposition of property which the actor wishes by omitting the other party into mistake. Therefore, in a case where it is acknowledged that the other party to the transaction would not have been notified of certain circumstances, if it is recognized that the other party to the transaction would not have been involved in the transaction, a person who receives the property is obligated to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance.

Nevertheless, it constitutes a crime of fraud by deceiving the other party by implied disregarding the fact that such notice has not been given.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do9644 Decided January 16, 2014). B.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the Defendant, from March 201 to March 201.