A. In fact, the Defendant, before entering into a franchise agreement on the F convenience store (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”) with the victim (hereinafter “instant convenience store”), provided detailed explanation of the legal disputes surrounding the instant convenience store to the victim and the owner of the building who introduced the victim and the victim.

In addition, the defendant was consulted by N to the effect that he will be engaged in business by entering the question of the convenience store of this case, and it was thought that there is no big problem in the operation of the convenience store of this case.

Therefore, the defendant deceivings the victim.

Although it cannot be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 6 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The deception as a requirement for a judgment of fraud as to the assertion of mistake of facts refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have a good faith and sincerity to each other in the transactional relationship of property. The deception by omission refers to such passive acts that a person subject to duty of disclosure under the law does not inform the other party of a certain fact with the knowledge that the other party was involved in a mistake. If it is evident that the other party would not have known of the fact in light of the rule of experience of general transaction, it is legally obligated to notify the facts in light of the principle of good faith (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do3263, Dec. 8, 1998, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the court below adopted and investigated the following facts and circumstances, i.e.,, the former convenience point of this case invested in the amount after entering into a franchise agreement with D Co., Ltd. operated by I, and concluded the franchise agreement in this case.