The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Since the Defendant believed that he was able to receive inheritance money from D, it does not mean that the Defendant deceiving the victim and received property or acquired property benefits.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, deception, which is a requisite for the relevant legal doctrine, refers to all affirmative and passive acts that have a good faith and good faith to be observed in property transaction. It does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act. It would suffice if it is related to the facts that form the basis of judgment for an actor to make a disposition of property which the other party wishes by omitting the other party’s mistake. Therefore, in a case where it is recognized that the other party to the transaction would have been notified of certain circumstances, a person who receives property has a duty to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance. Nevertheless, the failure to notify the other party of the fact that he/she would have induced the other party, thereby constituting fraud. The intention of deception, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant’s ability before and after the crime was committed, the content of the crime, the process of performing transactions, and the relationship with the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do2628, Aug. 17, 2017).