Dogmatics on the Criminal Law relating to the Fraud by omission: Focusing on the duty to inform in the Fraud which is non-obligatory Property Crime
Gi-jung Kang,JEONGBIN AHN,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18189/isicu.2023.30.1.201
2023-04-30
The Legal Studies Institute of Chosun University
Abstract:In the case of fraud, deception is an objective component, but its content and scope are not easily predictable. Jurisprudence expands the scope of deception by stating that all acts that are contrary to the good faith and sincerity are included in its scope. In discussing the establishment of the fraud by omission, precedents and theories that seek the basis for the duty to act in the principle of good faith are being criticized a lot. It is understandable that it is a realistic limitation that it is impossible to make all the circumstances and contents of the obligation to act as a component.
Article 18 of the Criminal Law needs to be specified as a provision corresponding to the fulfillment of the elements of omission and the need for legislation to add a provision for arbitrarily reducing the penalty according to the degree of illegality of the omission. The jurisprudence suggests as a criterion for judging whether the duty to inform is violated or not. The principle of good faith and sincerity is abstract and ambiguous regulation.
There have been many changes in the real estate transaction situation these days compared to the past. In consideration of the changed real estate transaction, whether the party acknowledges the violation of the duty to inform must be applied and interpreted differently. In this regard, this paper presents the opinion that a limited determination of fraud by omission should be made in consideration of the duty to inform and the duty of confirmation of the other party as well. Eventually, fraud by omission must be limitedly convicted.