The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal was that the victim had been well aware of the total debt amount of E before the division transfer, among E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E before division”).

(2) The Defendant agreed to pay the Defendant the entire debt of the instant transferor company prior to the division (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”) on March 4, 2014, as the Defendant agreed to pay the Defendant the entire debt of the instant transferor company prior to the division (hereinafter “the instant transfer contract”), and even if the Defendant was aware of the details of the Defendant’s entire debt of the instant transferor company prior to the division, it does not constitute deception of fraud, even if the Defendant did not notify the Defendant of the entire debt of the entire debt of the instant transfer company prior to the division.

Therefore, although the facts charged in this case do not constitute fraud, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on fraud, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant did not notify the victim of the fact that he had the obligation to notify the victim of the fact that he had the obligation to pay approximately KRW 900 million prior to the division in addition to the seizure obligation at the time of the conclusion of the transfer contract of this case, and such measures by the defendant constitute deception of fraud. Therefore, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, either erroneous facts or