However, only the defendant appealed on the ground of mistake of facts as to the guilty portion, and there is no ground for appeal as to the acquittal portion, and as such, the acquittal portion in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is exempted from the object of public defense among the parties.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do2820, Mar. 12, 1991). Therefore, with respect to the acquittal portion on the reasoning of the judgment below, the judgment of the court below is limited to the guilty portion of the court below, and the judgment of this court is not separately determined by this court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal was understood by the victim that “if the money received is used for personal purposes, it will first be used and will be supplemented later.” The Defendant used the money within the business account, such as the facts charged, and used it again and used it again, and the money paid to L is in the nature of remuneration for the business actually performed by L. As such, the act of using the money received from the victim, such as the facts charged, does not constitute occupational embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the crime of occupational embezzlement against the defendant is erroneous.

3. The Defendant also asserted a similar argument in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and recognized the Defendant’s establishment of the crime of occupational embezzlement, with detailed explanation on the grounds of “judgment on the Defendant’s and his defense counsel’s assertion” not exceeding 3 pages of the judgment.

The above judgment of the court below is compared with the records.