The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Cheongju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The deception, which is a requirement for fraud, refers to all affirmative and passive acts that have to be followed by each other in wide-scale transactional relationships, and that have breached good faith and good faith;

It is not necessarily required to make false indications on the important parts of the juristic act, but it is sufficient to say that it is the basis of judgment for the actor to perform the act of disposal of property that the other party wishes by omitting the other party's error.

Therefore, in cases where it is recognized that the other party to a transaction would not engage in a transaction if he/she received a notice of certain circumstances, a person who receives property is obligated to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance in accordance with the principle of good faith.

Nevertheless, the failure to notify it constitutes a crime of fraud by deceiving the other party by impliedly disregarding the fact that it would be known.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Do20682 Decided August 1, 2018). The existence of the criminal intent to acquire by deception, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances, such as the financial power, environment, content of the crime, process of transaction, relationship with the victim, etc. of the criminal defendant before and after the crime, unless the criminal defendant makes a confession.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Do3034 delivered on March 26, 1996). In a civil monetary lending relationship, the criminal intent of the defraudation of the borrowed money can not be acknowledged with the fact of default. However, in a case where the borrowed money is borrowed with the intent of full repayment or without the ability to repay within the due date for repayment as agreed upon by the defendant, the criminal intent of the defraudation can be recognized.

(See Supreme Court Decision 83Do1048 delivered on August 23, 1983). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following facts and circumstances. A.

The defendant rents a building at KRW 4 million, monthly rent of KRW 1100,000, and game machine.