The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the gist of the grounds for appeal stated that the defendant stated that the victim F is included in the alteration to the bar, it was merely mentioned in the process of soliciting the participation in the franchise store business, and the victim G does not contain any alteration to the bar.

Inasmuch as victims conducted the instant contract in advance by investigating and reporting the business prospects of the “D” chickens and concluded it according to their judgment, there is no causation between the Defendant’s act and the victims’ mistake.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to any affirmative or passive act that widely assumes the duty of good faith and sincerity to each other in property transaction. It does not necessarily require that it is related to the important part of a juristic act. It is sufficient if it is a basic fact of judgment for an actor to make a disposition of property which the actor wishes by omitting the other party into mistake, and whether a certain act constitutes a deception that causes a mistake of another person should be determined generally and objectively, by taking into account the situation of transaction, the other party’s knowledge, experience, occupation, etc. at the time of the act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1991 Decided October 25, 2007, etc.). Meanwhile, whether a certain act constitutes a deception that causes others to fall into a mistake, and whether there exists a causal relationship between such deception and the disposal of property ought to be determined generally and objectively by taking into account the specific circumstances at the time of the act, such as the transaction, the other party’s knowledge, character, experience, occupation, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 87Do1872 delivered on March 8, 1988). B.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① The Defendant, while advertising the franchise store business of this case, was in Korea.