1. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal, the Defendants’ grounds of appeal are not legitimate grounds of appeal, as they asserted in the grounds of appeal that the Defendants did not consider them as grounds of appeal or the lower court did not consider them as subject to ex officio.

Furthermore, even if examined, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged in the Defendants’ grounds of appeal.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal

A. The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to observe each other in property transactional relationships, and thus, it does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, and it is sufficient that it constitutes the basis of judgment for an actor to make a disposition of property which the actor wishes by omitting the other party into mistake.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828 Decided April 9, 2004). In a case where, at the time of the conclusion of an insurance contract, a policyholder claims insurance money and received it with the disregarding of the value of an object when the insured event occurred after intentionally inducing the state of excess insurance significantly exceeding the value of an object, and the insured is aware of the occurrence of an insured event, if the insurer knew that the amount of the insurance amount substantially exceeds the value of the object, the insurer would not conclude the insurance contract under the same condition if he knew that the amount of the insurance amount substantially exceeds the value of the object, and if it is recognized that the relationship between the insurer and the insurer did not pay the amount of the insurance amount in accordance with the agreed value is acknowledged

B. For the following reasons, the lower court erred by misapprehending the victim’s agricultural damage insurance company (hereinafter “victim”) among the facts charged in the instant case.