사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Around August 1, 2011, the summary of the grounds for appeal arose from the change of circumstances that the Defendant, a creditor of F, after concluding an agreement with the victim on August 1, 201, was subject to the obligation to notify the victim of the above facts under the good faith principle, as the Defendant newly entered into an agreement with the victim on August 12, 201.
Nevertheless, without notifying the victim of the above fact, the Defendant entered into a new agreement with the victim and received money from the victim. This constitutes a deception by omission.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.
2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was leased and operated by the Defendant, who was the owner of the “Eel” (hereinafter “Eel”) located in Gumisisi, and the Mour was sold to the victim G, etc. on August 1, 2011 due to voluntary auction.
On August 1, 2011, the Defendant assessed the corporeal movables provisionally seized (hereinafter “the instant corporeal movables”) at KRW 15 million on or around July 6, 201, as the F was provisionally seized on or around July 6, 2011, on the part of the victim G, who found in order to receive the her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her own or her her her her her her her her her her her her/ her her her her her/ her her her her her her/ her her her/ her her her/ her her her her/ her her her her/ her her
After that, around August 10, 2011, the Defendant got a seizure of the instant corporeal movables seized by a creditor I by an execution officer upon the creditor I’s delegation. The Defendant falsely concluded that, around August 12, 2011, contact the victim with the victim to deliver all 30 million won and to enable him/her to conduct business from August 15, 201.