The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around August 26, 2013, the summary of the facts charged stated that the Defendant, at the office operated by the Defendant located in Gwangju Northern-gu, the Defendant, “F Tick is not an accident vehicle” in the victim G question.

However, in fact, the truck as above is about August 201, H stroke driving.

As a result of an accident, Lart and fences were destroyed, and the whole tower was replaced due to the failure to wear fences, and the cost of KRW 10.5 million was paid to repair of the damaged part, and the defendant was also aware of that fact.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, had the victim purchase the truck as above set on August 27, 2013, and obtained 150 million won as the purchase price on the same day and acquired it by deception.

2. In light of the principle of good faith, deception as a requirement for fraud refers to any affirmative or passive act that has a good faith and duty to observe each other in property transaction. Among them, deception by omission refers to a passive act that a person subject to legal duty of disclosure does not inform the other party of a certain fact with the knowledge that the other party was involved in an error. If it is evident that the other party would not have known of the fact in light of the rule of experience of ordinary transaction, if it would have been evident that the other party would not have known of the fact, it is legally obligated to notify the fact in light of the principle of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006; 2007Do1033, Apr. 12, 2007). According to the health stand, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant is a Ft (hereinafter referred to as the " truck of this case"), and when the part of Ft transport was damaged to the front 3-1, 30-1, 3-1, etc.