A. In fact-finding, the Defendant did not have a duty to inform the victim of the control, as he did not expect that a person who purchased gas at the gas station as indicated in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant gas station”) would use it as fuel for a motor vehicle. Accordingly, the disposition of business suspension, etc. against the gas station in this case was not expected.

Even if the defendant has the duty of disclosure, the defendant did not know the existence of the duty of disclosure, so there was no intention to commit fraud.

B. Inasmuch as the “Agreement between the Defendant and the victim” (hereinafter “instant agreement”) written on August 4, 2017 between the Defendant and the victim did not stipulate the Defendant’s duty of disclosure, even if the Defendant did not notify the victim of the fact, it does not interfere with the realization of the victim’s rights under the instant agreement.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court, under the title “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion”, determined that the Defendant rejected the above assertion and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was aware that, at least, I and J would use the oil purchased at the gas station of this case as fuel for a motor vehicle, and even if the victim received the gas station of this case due to the control on July 17, 2017, due to the suspension of business, etc. against the gas station of this case.