Therefore, the prosecutor appealed on the guilty portion on the ground of erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Financial Users Act among the innocent portion. The defendant filed an appeal on the guilty portion on the ground of erroneous determination of facts and unreasonable sentencing.

Therefore, since the part of the facts charged in the instant case’s embezzlement for which the prosecutor did not appeal was separately confirmed, the prosecutor submitted a petition of appeal dissatisfied with the whole judgment of the lower court on December 10, 2014, and on January 5, 2015, the submission of the grounds of appeal in the instant case’s grounds of appeal and did not state the grounds of appeal regarding

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the grounds for appeal are examined as follows. (3) In light of the above legal principles, the grounds for appeal are examined. (4) In light of the above legal principles, the grounds for appeal are examined. (4) In light of the above legal principles, the grounds for appeal are examined. (4) In light of the above legal principles, the grounds for appeal are examined.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2219 delivered on December 12, 2003, etc.). The scope of this Court’s trial is limited to the portion of the judgment below’s conviction against the defendant and the portion of the judgment below’s acquittal against the defendant, which violates the Act on Registration of Credit Business and Protection of Financial Users.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts may threaten a victim, such as what is written in the facts charged, even if there is a misunderstanding of facts that the victim did not repay his/her obligation, enhancement of the victim’s speech and behavior, and somewhat littlely expressed an appraisal.