The acquittal portion shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

A. 1) The lower court convicted the Defendant of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, and acquitted the Defendant on the charge of embezzlement. Accordingly, the prosecutor appealeds on the grounds of mistake of facts as to the acquittal portion among the lower judgment and misapprehension of legal doctrine, and on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing as to the whole of the lower judgment. After that, the lower court’s judgment that maintained the facts charged of innocence portion as the primary facts charged, the victim filed an application for changes in the indictment to add the facts charged in favor of the recipient of the means of access as indicated in the lower judgment, and the subject of the judgment was added by granting permission. 2) The lower court rejected the Prosecutor’s assertion and rendered a judgment dismissing the Prosecutor’s appeal by determining the Defendant

Therefore, the prosecutor appealed the part not guilty (the point of embezzlement) on the ground of misapprehension of the legal principle.

3) The Supreme Court rendered a judgment of remanding the part of the judgment prior to remanding on the ground that there was an error by misapprehending the legal principles on embezzlement and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (b) In the case where there are several orders of the judgment, such as the court’s conviction of part of the case charged at the same time for concurrent crimes within the scope of adjudication, and the pronouncement of part of the acquittal, etc., the part included in one order may be appealed separately from other parts, and in such a case, the part on which both parties did not appeal shall be separately determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Do1402, Jan. 21, 1992). In light of the above legal principles, the part on conviction in the judgment prior to remand was separated from the Defendant and the prosecutor’s failure to appeal, and thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is reversed and remanded in the judgment of remand.