The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not notify the victim of the instant lease agreement and transfer agreement (hereinafter “each of the instant contracts”) who intends to operate accommodation business on the fifth or seventh floor of the instant building, of the fact that the fifth or seventh floor of the instant building was designated as amusement facilities (entertainment stores) at the time of concluding the instant lease agreement and transfer agreement, thereby deceiving the victim.

However, the lower court is difficult to recognize the Defendants’ intentional fraud or deception of the victims.

In light of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The requirement of fraud is widely known to all affirmative and passive acts that have to observe each other in relation to property transactions. It is sufficient to say that the deception does not necessarily mean false representation as to the important part of the juristic act, and it does not necessarily mean that it is the basis of judgment in order for the actor to take a disposition of property which he wishes to take by mistake. Thus, in a case where it is recognized that the other party to the transaction would not take a part in the transaction if the other party was notified of certain circumstances, the person who receives the property has a duty to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance in accordance with the principle of good faith. Nevertheless, the failure to notify the other party of the fact that it would mislead the other party of the transaction, thereby constituting fraud. Whether the act constitutes a deception that causes mistake of another person shall be determined objectively and objectively (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Do9164, Mar. 10, 1992; 200Do4784, Apr. 28, 2008).