On July 12, 2010, the part concerning the fraud and embezzlement (preliminary charge) is related to the primary charge.

A. 1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced the Defendant to a punishment of two years and six months. On July 12, 2010, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the embezzlement, which is the primary facts charged with the Defendant’s act on July 12, 2010, but found the Defendant guilty of fraud on July 12, 201, which is the ancillary facts charged, and did not separately sentence the Defendant not guilty.

2) Only the Defendant appealed against the lower judgment, and the lower court’s judgment prior to the first return of the case (Seoul District Court Decision 2014No224, Jul. 11, 2014; hereinafter the same) dismissed the Defendant’s appeal.

3) Accordingly, only the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance prior to the transfer of the first return. The judgment of the court of first instance (Supreme Court Decision 2014Do9792 Decided October 30, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) prior to the transfer of the first return, accepted the Defendant’s appeal and reversed the judgment of the court of first instance prior to the transfer of the first return and remanded to this court, on the grounds that “the judgment of the court prior to the transfer of the first return was erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the relationship with the deception in fraud, or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.”

4) The judgment of the court of first instance (Supreme Court Decision 2014No. 2533 Decided April 21, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) prior to the second re-delivery, found the Defendant guilty of the fraud committed on July 12, 2010 (hereinafter “the part”) other than the fraud committed on July 12, 2010 (hereinafter “the part”), and reversed the judgment of the court below, which found the Defendant guilty of the embezzlement, which is the primary charge against the fraud committed on July 12, 2010 (hereinafter “the part”), and found the Defendant not guilty of the second embezzlement, which is the primary charge against the fraud committed on July 12, 2010 (hereinafter “the part”), and found the Defendant guilty of the second part of the charges (hereinafter “the conjunctive charge”). < Amended by Act No. 10337, Jul. 21, 2010>