The nature of a crime of fraud is not known when concluding a lease agreement and failing to inform that the subject matter was put in a dune to sell the subject matter.

In a case where, after a real estate owner entered into a lease agreement and the purchaser agreed to deduct the deposit from the purchase price to succeed to the status of the lessor, it cannot be deemed a deceptive act solely on the ground that the lessee did not notify the lessee that the said object was placed in a dune for sale and purchase at the time of the lease agreement.

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 85No1244 delivered on May 10, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, if the defendant entered into a lease contract with the victim's worker on February 21, 1983 as well as the third floor room 4 square meters of the house owned by the defendant, and the victim agreed to pay 200,000 won on the day of the lease deposit. The defendant sold the above house to the non-indicted 3,000 won to the non-indicted 13,000 won who was the creditor of the defendant. The victim did not have any obligation to pay the lease deposit to the above non-indicted 2,50,000 won by taking over the lease deposit to the non-indicted 13,000,000 won. The victim did not have any right to receive the lease deposit from the non-indicted 2,50,000 won of the remainder of the house in this case before the expiration date of the lease contract, and it is difficult for the non-indicted 3,500,000 won of the lease deposit to the above non-indicted 3,500,00,000 won of the lease deposit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)