A. Whether the occurrence of property loss constitutes the elements of fraud (negative)

B. Conclusion of a sub-lease contract and the nature of fraud, which are based on the premise that the lease contract under the name of the wife is placed in the name of the defendant and the assignment order was issued against the claim for the refund of the lease deposit;

A. Fraud is established by deceiving another person to receive property or acquiring pecuniary benefits from the defective intent resulting from deception, and deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative and passive acts that have to observe each other in property transactional relations, and the essence of fraud refers to the acquisition of property or pecuniary benefits by deception, and do not require that real property damage would occur to the other party.

B. The defendant, in his own name from his own name, appears to be the lessee and did not notify the owner of the building of the fact of sub-lease. On the other hand, if the lessee sub-leases the store without notifying the fact that there is a claim for the repayment of the lease deposit and the assignment order, and if the security money was issued, the above non-disclosure cannot be deemed to have been actively concealed in order to deceiving the victim. The fact that the claim for the repayment of the lease deposit is entirely the fact that the claim for the repayment of the lease deposit is made it difficult to claim the return of the deposit of the victim because it is clear that there is a claim for the repayment of the deposit to the victim.

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 81No7318 delivered on September 2, 1982

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the above 20-year lease contract was concluded between the above 10-year lessee and the above 10-year lease contract was concluded by the defendant on May 2, 1979 and the above 10-year lease contract was concluded again with the above 10-year lessee, and that the above 10-year lease contract was concluded by the non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 7,00,000 monthly rent 20,000 won and the above 0-year lease contract was concluded by the non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's name.

2. Fraud is established by deceiving others and acquiring property or pecuniary benefits based on their defective intent, and deception as a requirement for fraud means all affirmative and passive acts that have to comply with each other in property transaction, and the essence of fraud is to acquire property or pecuniary benefits by deception and do not require that the other party actually incur property damage. Even according to the facts established by the court below, the lessee's name under the lease contract is the defendant, and the lessee does not appear to be the lessee and did not notify the other party of the fact of sub-lease. On the other hand, the assignment order cannot be deemed to have been properly concealed for the purpose of deceiving the victim, and the court below should have determined that the non-indicted 1's right to request the return of the lease contract was not established under the name of the defendant and the non-indicted 1's right to request the return of the lease deposit, and it is difficult for the court below to have determined that the non-indicted 1's right to request the return of the lease deposit and the right to request the return of the lease deposit cannot be established under the name of the victim.

There are reasons to discuss.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)