(b) The case holding that the so-called changed date in a large department store constitutes deception in fraud;

(c) The case holding that there was an intention of illegal acquisition for department stores in charge of department stores in the ordinary process of handling the affairs referred to in paragraph (b) above;

B. The case holding that, in the modern industrialization society, information on the quality and price of goods held by consumers depends on the advertisements of producers and distributors, and consumer confidence in large-scale distributors such as department stores (justifiable quality and due price) should be protected in terms of consumer confidence and expectation on the new goods created by large-scale advertisements on their own department stores, and the so-called changed rule that is entered into the third day immediately after comparing and indicating the previous prices and discount prices at the time of the first shipment with respect to new goods that had no previous date of shipment, is made by deception as to the specific price conditions that enable the truth-finding, and the degree of such deception exceeds the level of common sense which can be socially acceptable, and thus constitutes fraud.

C. The case holding that the defendant had an intention to acquire illegal profits for department stores even though the defendant was employed by the staff of department stores in the ordinary process of performing their duties on the changed day in the above Section B, in the ordinary process of performing their duties.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, where the Defendants conduct businesses using a certain type of store store store or sales fee, and the fixed prices of the products to be sold to the department store, and the fixed prices of the products to be sold at discount stores are determined by the respective department stores, and there are cases where they are generally used in the form of notification to the department stores, and where they are held at discount stores, they are related to the determination of discount rates of each department store or sales fee rate. However, in the case of discount sales, the lower court confirmed that the fixed prices of the products to be sold to the respective department stores and the fixed prices of the products to be handled by the respective department stores and the fixed prices of the products to be handled by the respective department stores and the fixed prices of the products to be handled by the respective department stores and the fixed prices of the products to be handled by the respective department stores and the fixed prices of the products to be handled by the respective department stores and the fixed prices of the products to be handled by the respective department stores and the fixed prices of the products to be handled by the respective department stores and fixed prices of the new department stores.

As recognized by the court below, if the department store shop occupants notify the department store occupants of whether they sell at discount and confirm them, and the department store sales rates are determined through consultation between the shop occupants and the sales office affiliated with the department store (fab) and advertised the contents of the discount sales to the consumers. In this case, with respect to new products that had not previously been shipped, such as this case, they are aware, directly or indirectly, of the fact that there are considerable changes in the previous prices and discount prices, and even if they do not know about the fact that there are considerable amounts of changes in the previous prices and discount prices, it is difficult to avoid criticism that the Defendants, who directly manage or directly manage the stores with the above changes in the process of business, are in charge of directly and indirectly of the goods brought in, even though they did not know about what kind of products of certain companies are subject to changes.

In addition, according to the records, in the case of a specific store, such as this case, the process that results in the sale of the goods to the department store, after examining the feasibility of the specific store, the merer's employees dispatched to the department store identify the quantity of the goods required, notify them to the log of the department store, and then notify the Defendants, who are responsible officials, to the department store, and to issue a purchase pre-sale slip to the merer, and to the merer, if the goods are supplied to the department store's check and to the merer pursuant to the pre-sale slip, the department store confirms whether there is anything abnormal in the goods, and then the merer's sales employees sell the goods to the department store, and then the amount of the sales to the department store's accounting officers take full charge of the amount of money in accordance with the agreed fee rates, and in light of such a series of process, the Defendants' liability to the 1st manager of the department store cannot be denied as the manager of the department store in this case on the third day.

The decision of the court below, which judged otherwise, has affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles of the conspiracy in fraud or misunderstanding the facts in violation of the rules of evidence, and there is a reason to point this out.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) the date of the instant change has reached an increase in the number of sales techniques by using three different forms of three different days from the first shipment of the product as the three-day period from the date of the first shipment; and (b) further, the specific sales methods in the instant change days have been expanded into one of the sales methods as the company did not change into the price lists indicated as normal prices in the relevant store price lists; (c) each department store or sales store has been adopted as one of the sales strategies or sales methods for the product without losing its original intent or function; and (d) each customer has reached an increase in the number of sales methods by using the three different forms of three different days from the date of the first shipment of the product; and (d) in manufacturing and shipping the new product from the sales store, the new product is displayed in the sales store with the price lists indicated as normal prices in the sales store; and (e) there was no change in the price rates indicated as above in the sales store prices; and (e) there was no change in the previous sales regulations at a high price for the new product.

The deception as a requirement for fraud means any active and passive act that causes a mistake to another person, which is widely and faithfully taking advantage of the belief and good faith to observe each other in the transactional relationship. The essence of fraud means the acquisition of property or property gains by deception, and the occurrence of property damage in reality to the other party does not require the requirement (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do3139, Feb. 22, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 85Do490, Nov. 26, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 88Do740, Jun. 28, 1988; Supreme Court Decision 88Do740, Jun. 28, 198; Decision 88Do740, Jun. 28, 198; Decision 88Do740, Jan. 20, 198; Decision 2000Do3588, Jun. 20, 200).

On the other hand, in the modern industrialization society, most information about the quality and price of goods held by consumers can not depend on advertisements of producers and distributors, and consumer confidence in large-scale distributors, such as the department stores in this case (justifiable quality, reasonable price), is created by large-scale advertisements by the department stores themselves, and consumers' trust and expectation in this case should be protected. The above change in the rule, which is at issue in this case, is the case, is made by deception as to the specific price conditions that can identify the truth, and the degree of the deception exceeds the level of the common sense which can be socially acceptable, so it cannot be said that fraud constitutes deception. The above change in the rule does not affect the establishment of deception that the above change in the rule takes advantage of the consumer's wrong consumption examination, or that goods were purchased by adding the price to the consumer's price.

In addition, the court below held that the Defendants, as employees of each department store, are in direct and indirect contact on the instant irregular date in the ordinary course of business, and held that they were not only for themselves, but also for them did not have any intent to obtain illegal gains on behalf of the department store, and furthermore, they did not purchase the goods on the sole basis of discount sale, and held that they did not engage in property disposal in a mistake by deception. However, if the instant irregular date falls under the deception of fraud, if they were to fall under the deception of fraud, they cannot be said to have had no intent to obtain illegal gains on the department store, as they are ordinary business process, and in this case, consumers should be deemed to have engaged in purchase by deceiving the department store on the date of the change of the department store, and as long as the causal relationship between the sales by discount and the purchases by consumers is recognized, even if they did not purchase the goods on the sole basis of discount sale, it does not affect the establishment of fraud.

The lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the legal doctrine on fraud, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and thus adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)