The remainder, excluding the rejection of an application for compensation order, shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.

A. As to the embezzlement for which the lower court rendered a verdict of not guilty of the facts, the Defendant was in the position of keeping KRW 1.2 million received from the victim N.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, observation of protection, and 120 hours of community service) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination 1) The portion of the charge of embezzlement, which the prosecutor added to the preliminary charge, found the lower court not guilty, shall be deemed not guilty as the primary charge, while maintaining the existing charge of embezzlement.

2. A. Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment was filed in addition to the ancillary facts charged, and this Court permitted this.

As examined below, as long as the trial is judged not guilty of the primary charges of embezzlement, the primary charges added in the trial are subject to a trial by this court. As such, the judgment of the court below that only the previous primary charges are subject to a trial cannot be maintained.

However, we examine the above reasons for reversal of authority, since the prosecutor's mistake of embezzlement in the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of this court.

2) On September 6, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for ten months for fraud in the Gwangju District Court’s Netcheon Branch on September 6, 2018 and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 14, 2018.

Since the crime of this case and the crime of fraud for which judgment has become final and conclusive are the concurrent crimes of the latter part of Article 37, the punishment for each crime of this case shall be sentenced in consideration of the equity among the cases where judgment is rendered simultaneously pursuant to the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

B. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, ruled that the crime of embezzlement (the primary charge against the deliberation) was established as follows.

The defendant shall enter into a contract for installment sale for medical use.