The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of mistake of facts did not mislead the victim D of the fact that he was given permission to the instant reservoir in the name of the Village Seniors Association, and even if the Defendant said speech, the timing of speaking is around February 11, 2016, prepared a lease agreement on the instant reservoir. Therefore, there is no causation between the Defendant’s deception and the issuance of the amount of money by the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in August) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The relevant legal principle of fraud is established by deceiving another person to make mistake by inducing such a disposal act, thereby receiving property or obtaining pecuniary benefits.

Here, deception refers to any affirmative or passive act that has a good faith and good faith to be observed by each other in a property transaction. It does not necessarily require that it is related to the important part of a juristic act, and it is sufficient that it is based on the basic fact of judgment that makes the other party omit the other party in mistake to conduct an act of disposal of property that the actor wishes.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828, Apr. 9, 2004). Moreover, there exists a successive causal relationship between deception and the other party’s mistake and the granting of property or pecuniary gain. However, a fraud may be established even in cases where there is negligence on the part of the defrauded in the cause of mistake.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1697 Decided June 23, 2009, etc.). Meanwhile, whether a certain act constitutes a deception that causes others to fall into a mistake, and whether such deception and disposal of property have a causal relationship should be determined generally and objectively by taking into account the specific circumstances at the time of the act, such as the transaction, the other party’s knowledge, character, experience, occupation, etc.

Supreme Court Decision 4 October 4, 2018