A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles were somewhat exaggerationd about future prospects at the time of entering into a contract, but there was an intention or deception by deception, since it is true about important matters, such as the operation structure and profit-making structure of online shopping mall, and the progress of the project at the time.

subsection (b) of this section.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service order 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, deception as a requirement for fraud means any affirmative and passive act that causes a mistake to the other party, which extensively lacks the fiduciary duty and good faith to each other in the transactional relationship of property. The essence of fraud refers to the acquisition of property or pecuniary benefits by deception, and does not require that the other party may actually incur property damage to the other party. Thus, in general, the mere exaggeration in the public relations of goods and the advertisement, and the deception that may be recognized in light of the general commercial practice and the good faith principle, is lacking in the case where a false notice is made to the extent of being criticized in light of the fiduciary duty of good faith in the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do1561, Sept. 9, 197). The reasoning of the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court does not require the other party to take account of these circumstances as follows: