사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) around 2005, when the victim clearly perceived the Defendant’s violation of the duty of disclosure, he was deprived of the opportunity to correct it even after the lapse of the period (three years from the date of conclusion of the insurance contract) is already able to cancel the insurance contract; and (b) so long as the victim paid the insurance money due to mistake as long as the conclusion of the contract by mistake at the time of initial insurance policy was maintained and the insurance contract
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground that there is no act of disposal by the defendant's mistake.
2. Determination of fraud requires causation between deception, mistake, and act of disposal of property. It is established by deceiving another person, omitting it into mistake, inducing a dispositive act, and thereby obtaining property or pecuniary advantage.
Witness
According to the legal statement of G and the police statement of G, the injured party B Co., Ltd. concluded each of the instant insurance contracts around February 2002 with the Defendant around February 2, 2002, and concluded each of the instant insurance contracts with the Defendant, and subsequently, around August 2003, the Defendant was clearly aware that the Defendant had urology before entering into each of the instant insurance contracts, but did not notify the Defendant thereof. Nevertheless, the injured party may be found to have continued to pay the insurance proceeds to the Defendant without cancelling
Thus, even if the defendant did not notify the victim of the intention to acquire insurance money at the time of entering into each of the insurance contracts in this case and caused mistake, the victim was already off from the mistake around August 2003 and even before the expiration of the exclusion period for the termination of the insurance contract at the time of the time, the defendant was able to resolve the insurance contract relationship by itself, but until then the time the insurance contract was covered by the urology.