A. Fact-misunderstanding (the document submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal is deemed to be within the scope of supplement in case of supplement) 1) The embezzlement against the victim S SS Co. (2017 order 3.62) The Defendant did not recognize the fact that B received additional payment of KRW 3 million from P, in addition to KRW 9.9 million, and did not consent to this, there was no intention of embezzlement against the Defendant.

2) Fraud against the victim U.S. (2017 Highest 3995) only paid advance payment to the victim to voluntarily maintain a contract with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), the Defendant did not induce the victim to pay advance payment to the Korea Broadcast Advertising Promotion Corporation, and the Defendant had the intent or ability to spend advertising expenses.

3) Fraud against A of the victim (2017 senior group 5029) was committed by the Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, does not have any fact of deceiving the victim as stated in the lower judgment.

4) The occupational embezzlement of the victim E (2017 senior group 6637) is not a legitimate person, and the victim E is a single company, so the occupational embezzlement cannot be established, and the evidence submitted by M is inadmissible as unlawful evidence.

With respect to the admissibility of illegal evidence, there is no mentioning statement of the grounds for appeal by the state-appointed counsel, and there is only the defendant's grounds for appeal that "M submitted is illegal evidence," and there is no mentioning about the defendant's personal interest, etc., but the primary fundamental right that may be infringed as evidence submitted by M is the freedom of occupational activities of E or the defendant. Thus, it should be determined to the maximum extent possible.

In addition, the embezzlement money in the holding of the court below is within the scope of the amount of the expense that the defendant would receive from the victim E, so it cannot be viewed as embezzlement.

5) The Seoul Central District Court that received enforcement from E on July 4, 2016.