The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to fraud, even though the Defendant did not intend to deceive the victims at the time of concluding a contract for the E-sale agency services with the victims (hereinafter “instant contract”).

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the court of appeal as evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the defendant was notified by the Sungnam City around February 19, 201 that the urban management plan was not prepared, but until the end of June 2010 without mentioning all these facts to the victims at the time of the contract of this case. ② The victim J paid 10 million won cashier's checks to the victim I under the name of the contract of this case. ③ The victim J was not present under the personal circumstance on the date of the contract of this case, ③ The victim J was merely 60 million won out of the above 100 million won, and the victim I paid 60 million won out of the above 100 million won to the defendant as the sale agency contract of this case. The defendant, who was an agent of the victim, could not be asked for the remainder of the 100 million won request for the construction permit of this case from the 2000,000,000 won.