1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant was guilty of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle

2. The appellate court shall judge without any need to examine whether the grounds for appeal are submitted, or whether the grounds for appeal are included in the statement of grounds for appeal, if the grounds for appeal are lawful. However, with respect to any grounds not to be subject to ex officio investigation, it shall be subject to adjudication only when the grounds for appeal are included in the statement of grounds for appeal submitted within the prescribed period, unless they are stated in the petition of appeal or they are not included in the statement of grounds for

Even if it is possible to judge ex officio, and on the other hand, the defendant et al. are not included in the grounds of appeal in the appellate court.

This is not included in the grounds for appeal.

(2) According to the records, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s act of deception constitutes a justifiable act only through the summary of the argument submitted on April 29, 2014, which was after the deadline for filing the statement of grounds for appeal expires, and such assertion cannot be deemed to be included in the grounds for appeal. Thus, the lower court did not render a judgment on this issue.

Even if there is no error in omission of judgment.

Furthermore, even if ex officio review is conducted, there is no error as alleged in the judgment below.

3. Meanwhile, the Defendant appealed on the remaining guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, but is justified in the petition of appeal.