1. We examine the remainder of the facts charged in the instant case, excluding the part relating to the victim F’s value-added tax fraud.

A. The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative and passive acts that have to comply with each other in the transactional relationship with property, and thus, are not necessarily required to be falsely labeled as to the important part of the 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.

Therefore, where it is recognized that the other party to a transaction would not engage in the transaction if he/she would have been notified of a certain situation, he/she has a duty to notify the other party of such circumstance in advance in accordance with the principle of good faith to a person who receives property or acquires pecuniary advantage through such transaction. Nevertheless, the failure to notify the other party of the fact that it would have been notified, thereby deceiving the other party, thereby constituting fraud.

In addition, the essence of fraud is to acquire property or pecuniary benefits by deception and thereby infringe upon the other party's property, so it does not need to cause any real property damage to the other party (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828, Apr. 9, 2004, etc.). Moreover, the recognition of criminal facts should be proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act), but the selection and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). (b) The first instance court held that the victims who wish to sell the business building in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter "the commercial building in this case").