The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The defendant shall obtain money from E, an applicant for compensation, KRW 91,869,341, and shall do so on March 2014.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

At the time of leasing the instant apartment to the victim, the difference between the amount of KRW 100 million and the amount of KRW 100,000,000, not the collateral security debt established in the instant apartment in the market price, and the lease deposit against the victim. However, even though it is difficult to deem that the Defendant did not return the lease deposit to the victim due to the impossibility of his business, and there was a criminal intent to deceive the victim from the beginning, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case to have affected the conclusion of the

B. The sentence of imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is unreasonable.

Judgment

1) The intent of deception, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, is to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial power before and after the commission of the crime, the environment, the content of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. The criminal intent is sufficient not to have a definitive intent but to have dolusent intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8726, Aug. 21, 2008). Meanwhile, deception as a requirement of fraud refers to any affirmative or passive act that has breached good faith and good faith that should be observed in the context of property transaction. The deception does not necessarily mean any false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, and it is sufficient to determine whether a certain act constitutes deception that a perpetrator wishes to act by omitting another person by mistake, taking into account the situation of transaction, the other party’s knowledge, experience, and occupation at the time of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007.