(b) a Party’s duty of disclosure in a transaction with respect to property rights;

B. In the transaction of property rights, where it is evident in light of the empirical rule that one party has a duty to notify in advance the other party of such circumstances in accordance with the principle of good faith that if he/she would have received the notification of such circumstances, he/she would not receive any property or deliver any property, etc., if he/she would have received the notification of such circumstances if he/she would have received the notification of such circumstances, he/she would not have any effect on the validity of the transaction or the performance of obligations, and would not cause any danger of not securing contractual claims, by failing to notify the other party of any matters related to the transaction, and thereby, he/she would have a duty to inform the other party of such circumstances in advance. The failure of such notification would mislead the other party of the fact that he/she would not affect the validity of legal relations, and there is no obligation to notify the other party of the reason that the other party

1. On the first ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4's fraud, the court below acknowledged that the above 80,000 won was charged to the seller at the time of the sale contract of this case, and that the seller was paid 20,000,000 won in aggregate with the down payment and intermediate payment, and that the remainder of 326,60,000 won was paid after the seller completed the construction project on the above land to extend the site of the apartment house to 30,000 won. The court below found that the seller was not guilty of the above 80,000,000 won in light of the above 20,000,000 won in the above 197,000,000 won in the above 17,000,000 won in the above 17,000,000 won in the above 27,000,000 won in the above case where the above construction project was not completed.

There is no violation of the rules of evidence. The intention of deception, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime of fraud, cannot be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the financial power, environment, details of the crime and the process of performing the transaction after the crime unless the defendants make a confession (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do312 delivered on September 25, 1984). The court below held that the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the process of establishing a sales contract and settling the price (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do312 delivered on September 25, 1984).

2. On the second ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above Defendants 1-2 did not have any effect on the fraud of the above Defendants 4, and the above Defendants were 1-1 (2) and were able to jointly invest in the above 1-2 apartment building and the above 11-3 apartment house by acquiring the above 1-2 apartment house with the non-indicted 1, and they did not have any dispute over the above 11-2 apartment house on the above land, and the above 2, 3, 4 and 4 were released from the above 1-3 business relationship (as a result of the records, 172,00,000 won were returned to the above 1-2,00 won under the consent of the non-indicted 1, and the above 1-1,000 shares were not known to the public prosecutor's office, and it did not constitute an unlawful act of dismissal of the above Defendants 1-1 and 11-2, and there was no objection to the above 1-1,000 shareholders' meeting.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the dismissal of the above director's position has the effect of losing the investment bond of the partner. In the end, it is unreasonable to discuss.

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the judgment of the court below, since the above defendants 1 were not informed of the facts charged against the above 4, and the construction business operator's new construction transactional relationship or supply contract with the above victims were trying to participate in the above construction business, and there was no need to present a copy of the register of the land at the time of the above construction business operator's offering of the above construction contract. The above construction business operator's new construction of 148 households and 170,000 won was sold to the other party, and the above construction business operator did not have an obligation to inform the other party of the new construction transactional relationship with the above 19,00 won because the above construction business operator's new construction transactional relationship was not entered into with the above 8,00 won, and there was no error of law that the above construction business operator did not have an obligation to inform the other party of the new construction transactional relationship with the above 19,000 won, and it was found that the above construction business operator's new construction transactional relation was not concluded yet.

4. On the fourth ground for appeal:

As evidence of the facts charged against all of the defendants is examined by comparing them with records, it is insufficient to find the defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5 guilty of the above facts charged. Thus, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant 1's conviction, acquitted the remaining defendants, or maintained the judgment of the court of first instance of the same conclusion is just, and it cannot be said that there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence. Thus, the argument is groundless.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)