On the other hand, only the Defendants appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, and the prosecutor did not appeal the acquittal portion on the grounds of the fraud against the victim H and the acquittal portion on the fraud against the victim C.

Therefore, since the acquittal portion on the charge of fraud against the victim C is separately determined as it is, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the fraud of the victim H among the judgment of the court below. In such a case, the acquittal portion on the charge of fraud against the victim H is also transferred to this court along with the guilty part. However, the acquittal portion on the ground is already excluded from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and thus, the acquittal portion on the ground is subject to the conclusion of the judgment of the court below, and it

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant A notified the victim H of the contact address of Defendant B by having the victim H as the actual owner of business start-up, and Defendant B had the contacted with the victim H as if the actual owner of the business start-up. However, it is reasonable to view the contents that Defendant B expressed to the victim H as the content that can be recognized as a starting-up in light of the general commercial transaction practices and the good faith principle. Therefore, it cannot be viewed as a deceptive act in fraud, and the Defendants did not have the intent to defraud or obtain illegal profits

Nevertheless, the defendants deceptioned the victim H and acquired 4.9 million won in total.