[2] The case holding that a crime of fraud is established in a case where a real estate related company provided false or exaggerated information as if the development plan that was not finalized based only on a local government's specific service report became final and conclusive, and entered into a contract with a buyer

A. As to the forest land of this case

The court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant had committed deception in selling the forest land of this case to the victims. In light of the records, the court below's above determination is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal or any violation of the legal principles as to the requirements for establishment of fraud.

B. As to the instant river, spawn forest, etc.

The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative and passive acts that have to observe each other in the context of property transactions, and cause mistake to the other party. The essence of fraud does not require that the acquisition of property or pecuniary gains by deception and that real property damage would occur to the other party. In general, the mere exaggeration in the propaganda of goods, advertisements, and the false representation in the manner that would be acceptable in light of the general commercial practices and the good faith principle. However, if specific facts about important matters in transactions are falsely notified in a manner that would be subject to criticism in light of the duty of trade in good faith, it constitutes deception in fraud beyond the limits of exaggeration and false advertisements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5789, Feb. 5, 2002).

According to the evidence adopted by the court below, the defendant set up the so-called planning real estate office and did not inform the business employees of the information about the ceiling, the proper forest, and rather, did not enter into a sales contract by providing false or extremely exaggerated information as if the development plan which was not finalized based only on the service report prepared by the Docheon-gun and the service company for the 21st century, "the long-term comprehensive development plan for the 21st century," "the basic plan for the development of environment-friendly folk village," and "the basic plan for the construction of a true hinterland city," etc. This constitutes a case where the specific facts about important matters in the transaction beyond the permissible extent to be recognized in light of the general commercial practices and the good faith principle, constitute fraud, and thus deceiving another person in light of the duty of good faith in the transaction, and thus, the court below was justified in finding the defendant guilty of each fraud, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, misapprehension of the legal principles as to the limits of permission for fraud and false or exaggerated advertisements, or omission of the judgment.

In addition, the joint execution of a crime by a public offering does not require that all accomplices realize the elements of a crime by themselves, and it is possible to cooperate with them to strengthen the decision on the act. Whether the act constitutes it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the degree of understanding of the result of the act, the size of the act, the intent to control the crime, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006, etc.). In a case where the defendant denies the criminal intent together with the fact of the public offering, the facts constituting such subjective elements are not necessarily proven by the method of proving the indirect or circumstantial facts which have considerable relevance with the criminal intent, and what constitutes indirect facts that have considerable relation with the criminal intention, it is reasonable to reasonably determine the connected status of the defendant through the close observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule, and in light of the facts alleged in the grounds of appeal by the defendant's employee and the method of selling the forest and land, etc., and the extent of the defendant's role in the public offering and its position as the defendant's employee.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

A. As to the forest land of this case

The court below rejected the complainant's statements, etc., which correspond to the defendants' act of deception as stated in this part of the facts charged, through the employees of the company, such as Daedong C&D, on the grounds of its stated reasoning. Rather, in light of the facts acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted by the court of first instance, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants and employees, such as Daedong C&D, sold the forest in the instant case, and there was a fraudulent act. In light of the records and the aforementioned legal principles, the court below's aforementioned determination is just, and there is no violation of the empirical rules or logical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. As to the Jeju Forest in this case

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in accordance with the records and the legal principles as seen earlier, the court below was just in finding the Defendants or employees of the Daedong C&D, etc. not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Defendants or employees of the Daedong C&D, etc. committed deception to the extent that they constituted fraud beyond the limits of false and exaggerated advertisements, and there was no illegality in the judgment below contrary to the empirical rule as alleged

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)