In such a case, the portion of innocence as well as the portion of acquittal on the grounds of indivisible principle is to be tried in the trial room. However, since the part of innocence was already out of the object of attack and defense between the parties, it cannot be judged again by the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004; 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010). Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below as to the part of innocence is followed, and it is not determined separately in the trial room.

2. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal (two years of suspended execution in the imprisonment of eight months, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

3. Although there are circumstances that can be considered in light of the circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant's mistake was recognized when the judgment was made in the first instance trial, and that the full amount of the money obtained by deceit for the victim was deposited in the original trial, the crime of this case is not less than the nature of the crime in light of the methods and circumstances of deception and the circumstances. In full view of the fact that the criminal of this case was punished as the same kind of crime, and the defendant's age, sex behavior, occupation and environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and all other factors of sentencing as indicated in the records and the theory of changes, even if the above circumstances favorable to the defendant are considered, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, it is true.