The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by six months of imprisonment.

1. The judgment of this court on February 2, 201, on the following grounds: (i) mistake of the gist of the grounds for appeal and misapprehension of legal principles (with respect to fraud, at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the defendant had the intent and ability to complete the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the victim with respect to the He, I, and J land of Soju-gun, Gyeonggi-do, which is the subject of sale; (ii) there was no intention to obtain fraud; and (iii) the defendant had no intention to commit the crime of uttering of the above investigation document;

A. (1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the trial court including the witness E and N in the first instance court and the first instance court as to whether the defendant presented the power of attorney in the false G name to the victim, the defendant can be recognized that he had the power of attorney at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, since the defendant's aforementioned power of attorney at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, the above assertion by the defendant disputing this point is unacceptable.

(2) Next, we examine the criminal intent of defraudation, and the deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative and passive acts that have the duty of trust and good faith to be followed by each other in the property transaction. It is sufficient to say that it does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, and it is a basis for judgment in order to have the other party make a disposition of property desired by the perpetrator by omitting the other party in error. Therefore, in a case where it is recognized that the other party to a general transaction would not have been in a transaction if the other party to the transaction was notified of certain circumstances in light of the empirical rule of the general transaction, the person who received the property according to the transaction shall be legally obligated to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance.