The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case was that the Defendant entered into a contract for the use of the access road to G and access road around April 27, 2006 without notifying the victim H, the buyer, despite the fact that the Defendant entered into a contract for the use of the land amounting to KRW 1,50 million from April 27, 2006 to April 27, 2014, to KRW 1,500,000,000 for the purchase price of the real estate in this case (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

As above, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) received KRW 120 million from the victim as the down payment on the same day; and (c) received KRW 1410 million as the remainder payment on March 26, 2009.

2. Determination

A. In the transactional relationship with respect to property rights, in a case where it is evident in light of the empirical rule that one party would have a risk of not securing any right to the subject matter of the contract in the future by failing to notify the other party of any matters related to the transaction, and without notifying the other party of the fact, the other party would have received any property or benefits to property from the other party, and the other party would have not entered into the transactional relation if he would have received any notification of such circumstances, the receiver of the property shall be subject to the duty of disclosure to the other party in accordance with the principle of good faith. The fact that the addressee of the property did not notify the other party of the fact that he did not notify it, thereby deceiving the other party of fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do231, Apr. 14, 1998).