1. In the crime of fraud, deception is based on the premise of intention, and it includes dolusent intention. However, the willful negligence as a subjective element of the constituent elements of the crime refers to the case where it is admitted in accordance with the statement that the possibility of occurrence of the crime is uncertain. Therefore, in order to have existence of dolusent intention, there is not only awareness of the possibility of occurrence of the crime, but also an internal intent to allow the risk of occurrence of the crime. Whether the actor permitted the possibility of occurrence of the crime should be determined by considering the possibility of occurrence of the crime in general public based on specific circumstances, such as the form of the act performed outside and the situation of the act, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1214 Decided February 26, 2009). Meanwhile, a life insurance contract refers to an agreement to pay insurance proceeds with respect to a person’s life. Here, “accident” refers to an accident resulting from an unforeseeable cause, not intentional, but unexpected cause, and refers to an accident resulting from an unforeseeable consequence in ordinary process.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da78491, 78507 Decided August 19, 2010). Therefore, even if a policyholder concludes a life insurance contract with an insurer in violation of the duty of disclosure under the Commercial Act, the insurance money is not paid only by the conclusion of the insurance contract, but only by the occurrence of an accident. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that there was an intentional deception on the part of the policyholder to acquire the insurance money solely on the basis that the policyholder concluded the insurance contract in violation of the duty of disclosure under the Commercial Act.