The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding: The Defendant did not know the fact that the object could be removed from the three-story multi-household housing located in G at the time of entering into a lease contract with the victims (hereinafter “multi-household housing”). Therefore, there was no deceitful act against the victims.

Therefore, the defendant has committed a crime of fraud.

The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Sentencing: even if a crime of fraud is established, the sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to comply with each other in the transactional relationship with property, and it does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, and it is sufficient to say that it is the basis of judgment for an actor to make a disposition of property which the actor wishes by omitting the other party into mistake.

Therefore, in a case where it is recognized that the other party to a transaction would not have been engaged in a transaction if the other party to the transaction was notified of a certain situation, a person who receives property or acquires pecuniary benefits from such transaction is obligated to notify the other party of such circumstance in advance in accordance with the good faith principle. Nevertheless, without notifying the fact that the other party would not have been notified, it constitutes a crime of fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do909, Oct. 15, 2014). (b) According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the following facts may be acknowledged:

1) The Defendant, on behalf of L, concluded or renewed a lease agreement on multi-family housing with victims from July 28, 2011 to June 2013, 201, as indicated in the facts charged.

(ii)..