All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendants were involved in entering into the instant lease agreement with the victim around October 10, 201 without knowing the fact that D, the owner of the instant building, was in arrears with interest of KRW 300 million borrowed from the Korean bank (hereinafter “Korea bank”) from around April 201, and that the voluntary auction procedure for the instant building was scheduled by the Korean bank, etc., and that the Defendants did not know of the fact that D, the owner of the instant building, was involved in entering into the instant lease agreement, such as the facts charged, and that there was no deception, nor did they intended to commit fraud, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

2. The deception as a requirement for determining the reason for appeal refers to any affirmative or passive act that has a fiduciary duty and duty in good faith with respect to property transaction. Such passive act means that a person subject to legal duty of disclosure does not inform the other party of a certain fact despite being aware that the other party was involved in a mistake. In a case where it is evident that the other party would not have been aware of the fact in light of the empirical rule of general transaction, the legal duty to notify the other party of the fact in light of the principle of good faith is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do3263, Dec. 8, 1998). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below concluded a lease contract between the victim and the gymnasium on the third floor of the building of this case (hereinafter “instant gymnasium”), and concluded a lease contract between the victim and the gymnasium on September 23, 2011, and made a lease contract between the victim and the g.