A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) Defendant 1 also prepared a fair deed (which means one right 27 pages of investigation records, hereinafter “fair fair deed of this case”) that compensates for the land value, such as promotional materials related to approximately 100 square meters (hereinafter “the land of this case”) out of the land of Kim Jong-si, and thus, Defendant 1 did not have any criminal intent of deception.

2) At present, the instant land has a value of at least KRW 85 million paid by the victim, thereby causing property damage.

It can not be seen that there is no guarantee of the profit agreed on in the instant fair deed is merely a default of obligation.B. The sentence (6 months of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant, which is unfair, is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In regard to the assertion of mistake of facts, deception as a requirement for fraud legal doctrine related to fraud means that a person makes a mistake by all affirmative and passive acts that have to observe one another in the transaction of property widely, and that a person lacks good faith and good faith. The essence of fraud is to acquire property or property benefits by deception and that real property damage to the other party is not the requirement. Thus, in general, the mere exaggeration in the propaganda of goods, advertisement of the goods, and false statements are lack of deception as long as possible in light of the general commercial practices and the good faith principle. However, if concrete facts about important matters in the transaction are falsely notified in a manner that would be subject to criticism in light of the good faith and good faith in the transaction, it constitutes deception beyond the limit of fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6549, Oct. 23, 2008). 208, the lower court lawfully adopted and investigated based on evidence.