The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there was a fact that the Defendants received the deposit from the victims, in the auction procedure, they were expected to receive the deposit from the Defendants and return it to the victims, and they were not aware that there was a duty to inform the victims of the fact that the auction of the instant bathing building was in progress, so the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the Defendants.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The deception as a requirement for fraud by misunderstanding the legal principles refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to observe each other in property transaction relations, and the deception by omission refers to a person subject to duty of disclosure who is aware that he/she was involved in a mistake in a certain fact and does not notify the other party thereof. In cases where it is evident that the other party would not have been aware of such fact in light of the principle of good faith in general transaction, if it is evident that the other party would not have been aware of such fact, the legal obligation to notify such fact is recognized in light

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do3263 Decided December 8, 1998, etc.). The following circumstances, i.e., when an auction is being conducted for a bath building of this case, the recovery of the victims' claims for return of deposit is not clear, and as such, the issue of progress of auction is generally expected to be an important matter under the contract. Thus, the Defendants are obliged to inform the victims of the fact that the auction procedure for the bath building of this case is in progress at the latest around March 2013.