The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, who works as a counselor of the victim Dong-dong Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., other than the victim Dong-dong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and received fees for the conclusion of the insurance contract, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the victim was accused of the victim since employees of the victim knew the fact that the counselors, including the defendant, entered into an irregular contract at the work site, and encourage the victim to do so. Therefore, even though the basis for the calculation of fees specified in the amount of damage is unclear,

2. The deception as a requirement for fraud means all affirmative and passive acts that have to be observed by one another in the wide sense of property transaction. It is sufficient to say that it does not necessarily mean false representation as to the important part of a juristic act, and that it is the basis for judgment in order for an actor to conduct a disposition of property which he wishes by omitting the other party in error. Thus, in a case where it is recognized that the other party to the transaction would not be engaged in the transaction if he received a notice of certain circumstances, the person who receives the property is obligated to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith.

Nevertheless, it constitutes a crime of fraud by deceiving the other party by implied disregarding the fact that such notice has not been given.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828 Decided April 9, 2004, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned legal doctrine and evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court, i.e., (i) the insured has no intent and ability to pay the premium solely based on the said legal doctrine.