전기통신금융사기피해방지및피해금환급에관한특별법위반등
The judgment below
Among them, each part of the defendants' convictions against the defendants, excluding the rejection of the application for compensation order.
1. The scope of this court’s judgment in this case against the Defendants on the charge of violating the Special Act on Prevention of Loss and Refund of Loss from Telecommunications-based Financial Fraud, and each of the remaining facts charged against the Defendants was pronounced guilty, and only the Defendants appealed on the part of the judgment below excluding the dismissal of the application for compensation order among the part of the judgment below excluding the dismissal of the application for compensation order among the part of the judgment below, and the Defendants and the prosecutor did not appeal all of the aforementioned acquittal portion against the Defendants. However, the essence of the judgment’s appeal is that the Defendant’s request for an unfavorable judgment by correcting the disadvantageous original judgment was made and the judgment cannot have the right to appeal against it unless the judgment is disadvantageous to himself. Thus, the Defendant’s appeal against the acquittal judgment, the most favorable to the Defendant, is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do1091, Jul. 29, 199; 2012Do1200, Dec. 27, 2012).
The judgment below
Among the parts other than the rejection of the application for compensation order, each of the above innocences against the Defendants was separated and finalized, and excluded from the object of adjudication by this court.
Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to each of the above convictions against the defendants in the part of the judgment below, excluding the rejection of application for compensation order.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-finding (Defendant B) Defendant B is a criminal fact of the judgment of the court below.
The denial of this case does not constitute a deception of one million won by deceiving the victim AM as stated in the attached list No. 8 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant denied part”) of the crime sight table of this case.