1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the first instance court and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable for the lower court to have found the Defendants guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

2. Meanwhile, according to the records, the court below did not go through the abstract of evidence and the abstract of Mediet (Evidence No. 11 and 12) submitted by Defendant A in the column of "the summary of evidence" (Evidence No. 11 and 12). However, the court below presented the reasoning for conviction in the part of "the judgment on the Defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles"

However, among the documentary evidence submitted by the defendant or defense counsel as data concerning innocence, the defendant is guilty.

Even if there is no other party’s recourse, the court may not use the document as evidence for the conviction, unless it investigates whether the document has been authentic or not, and the defendant or his/her defense counsel provided an opportunity to present and vindicate his/her opinions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10787, May 28, 2009). (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10787, May 28, 2009).

Although the phrase “determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendants” does not correspond to the essential elements of the conviction judgment requested by the Criminal Procedure Act, it is merely a reference entry to enhance the persuasive power of the judgment, in light of the content thereof, the court of original judgment puts emphasis on the summary of evidence.