1. The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative and passive acts that have to be complied with by each other in the wide sense of trust and good faith in property transaction. It does not necessarily require that the deception is related to the important part of a juristic act. It is sufficient to establish the basis of judgment for making an actor take an action of property which the actor wishes by omitting the other party into mistake.

Whether a certain act constitutes a deception that causes mistake to another person, and whether there exists a causal relationship between such deception and property disposal should be determined generally and objectively in consideration of the situation of transaction, the other party's knowledge, character, experience, occupation, and other specific circumstances at the time of the act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do7459, Oct. 15, 2009; Supreme Court Decision 201Do8829, Oct. 13, 2011). Moreover, a crime of fraud is established by deceiving another person to omit such act in error and inducing such act of disposal to gain economic benefits.

Here, a dispositive act means an act of disposal of property that gives property to an offender, etc. or that gives property gains, and in the event that the dispositive act is omitted in mistake by a person who has the authority to dispose of property or property gains, a deception is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Do484, Apr. 27, 2001; 2002Do2620, Jul. 26, 2002). 2. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: (a) the Defendant, along with the victim G Agricultural Cooperatives (hereinafter “GF”), to the person in charge of agricultural transaction of the victim GF (hereinafter “GF”) on January 21, 2009, “A company I (hereinafter “I”) would pay 2% fee to GF and pay the purchase price from the farmers within one year from GFF through GFF, thereby making a false statement between GF and I.