A. In a case where there are several orders for the judgment, such as partial conviction and partial acquittal for a case prosecuted concurrently for concurrent crimes, the part included in the main text of the judgment may be appealed separately from other parts and the part not appealed by both parties are separated and confirmed. Thus, in a case where only the prosecutor appealed on the part of the judgment of the first instance which acquitted or acquitted the part of the concurrent crimes, the part which was not appealed by the defendant and the prosecutor, which became final and conclusive as the expiration of the period of appeal, is not only public prosecution for the part of the judgment of innocence but also pending in the appellate court. Accordingly, if the appellate court reverses it, the part of the judgment of

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Do1402 delivered on January 21, 1992). B.

According to the records, the court below found the defendant A guilty of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case, and acquitted the defendants as to the charge of aiding and abetting private documents and exercising the above investigation documents against the defendant B.

However, since only a prosecutor has filed an appeal against each of the Defendants not guilty portion (the petition of appeal submitted by a prosecutor contains “the entire amount” in the column of the scope of the appeal, but it is evident that the prosecutor follows the statement in the statement of grounds of appeal submitted on October 30, 2019 and the prosecutor follows mistake of facts as to the acquittal portion among the judgment below as the grounds of appeal). The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below becomes final and conclusive by the court below, and the scope of the trial of the court below

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the credibility of the victim’s statement is high and the content of relevant documents such as the written notification conforms to the victim’s statement; (b) the Defendants’ assertion is contrary to the empirical rule or against the content of relevant documents; and (c) the Defendants’ statement is contrary to the victim’