The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to each of the primary facts charged among the non-guilty parts

A. Fraud is a crime committed by deceiving others, leaving them in mistake, and thereby inducing the victim to perform a dispositive act, thereby gaining property or pecuniary gains.

Therefore, in order to establish fraud, there exists deception by the actor, mistake by the victim, disposal by the victim, and acquisition of property or profits from property by the actor, and there is a relationship with the other party in order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Do346, Jul. 11, 1989; 2000Do1155, Jun. 27, 2000). dispositive act in fraud connects the final outcome of the actor’s deception, namely, the mistake by the victim, and the acquisition of property or profits from property by the actor, etc., by using the act of the victim, with the intrinsic characteristic of the acquisition of property by the use of the act of the victim, and the act of larceny by the actor, instead of the act of the victim, plays a role of distinguishing the acquisition of property by the method of seizure.

In consideration of these roles and functions of the disposal act, the actor acquired property or property benefits through any act based on the intention of the person who was committed.

If it can be assessed, a disposal act as referred to in fraud is recognized.

B. As to such act of disposal, the Supreme Court has previously held that there should be subjective perceptions about the result of the disposition to the person who was subject to such disposition, i.e., the perception of the result of the disposition, and that there should be an objectively controlled act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Do1042, Oct. 26, 1987; 99Do1326, Jul. 9, 199; 201Do769, Apr. 14, 201). Accordingly, the victim had committed an act of causing property damage to himself/herself by deceiving the victim.

Even if they are created, they are generated.