The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In relation to the sale and purchase of each real estate of this case, the seller has a duty to notify the seller of the fact that the existence of management expenses in arrears has an important effect on the buyer's decision-making

must be viewed.

Therefore, although the defendant did not notify the existence of the management expenses in arrears because he did not inform the other party of the fact that the fraud was established by deceiving the other party, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts or erred by misapprehending the legal principles which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below is based on the premise that the other party to the transaction would not be engaged in the transaction in question if the other party to the transaction would have been notified of a certain circumstance, and that the other party would have an obligation to notify the other party of such circumstance in advance in accordance with the good faith principle. Nevertheless, the failure to notify the situation constitutes fraud by deceiving the other party by deceiving the other party by silenting the facts to be notified (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do909, Oct. 15, 2014). The essence of fraud is the acquisition of property or pecuniary benefits by deception, and it does not need property damage to the other party (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828, Apr. 9, 2004, etc.). Then, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the court below, i.e., the special successor to the ownership of each of the real property in this case, to the extent that the victims would have been able to purchase the above real property from KRW 400 million or 600 million, respectively.