The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On July 17, 2014, when the victim became aware of the fact that there may be an administrative disposition after visiting the Gu office in order to report the succession to the status of the business operator on or around July 17, 2014, the Defendant prepared a letter of commitment to the effect that the Defendant is liable if there is an administrative disposition in the future against the victim, and thus, cannot be deemed that

At the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, the victim remitted the price to the Defendant without considering whether there was an administrative disposition, etc., and at the time of reporting succession to the status of the business operator, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant employed the employee and engaged in entertainment activities. Therefore, the victim cannot be deemed to have concluded the instant contract in error.

The actual gain gained by the Defendant under the instant contract is merely KRW 7.7 million, and the amount of damages to the victim should be limited to KRW 7.7 million.

B. In light of the legal principles, the transferor of the provision related to administrative disposition among the special terms and conditions of the contract for the transfer of right facilities in this case, where an administrative disposition, etc. was not notified due to cooperation with all authorizations, permissions, etc. up to the beginning of the transferee, it is difficult to view that the transferor was subject to the duty of disclosure on the ground that the transferor was subject to an administrative disposition due to the opposite interpretation

Even if there is no duty of disclosure about the administrative agency's crackdown before reaching the administrative disposition.

Therefore, there was no obligation to inform the defendant of the fact that the defendant had provided entertainment services.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The deception as a requirement for judgment of fraud as to the assertion of mistake of facts is all the matter of trust and good faith to be observed in the transactional relationship of property.