The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court convicted the Defendant of the charges of this case, even though it was difficult to recognize the Defendant’s intention of deception or deception, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, that the lower court determined that the Defendant was guilty of the charges of this case (to the extent of supplement of the grounds for appeal as stated in the Reasons for Appeal, and not separately determine as to the assertion that is not entirely written in the Reasons for Appeal). (b) The unfair sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The deception as a requirement for a judgment of fraud, such as mistake of facts, refers to any affirmative or passive act that generally lacks the fiduciary duty and good faith to each other in a transactional relationship with property. The deception by omission refers to a passive act that a person subject to duty of disclosure under the law does not inform the other party of a certain fact with the knowledge that the other party was involved in a mistake. If it is evident that the other party would not have been aware of the fact in light of the ordinary transaction experience, if it is evident that the other party would not have been involved in the juristic act, it shall be legally obligated to notify the fact in light of the good faith principle (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6891, Apr. 28, 2004, etc.). The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective element of fraud, should be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the re-power of the accused, etc. before and after the crime, the environment, the details and details of the crime, and the process of implementing the transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do166, Feb. 28, 2008).