Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part of the acquittal is separately determined and excluded from the judgment of this court.

In addition, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the portion of the charge of occupational embezzlement, among the charges of embezzlement, that part of the newspaper subscription fees (including KRW 5,000,000 on January 31, 201, and KRW 5,000,000 on January 26, 2015), among the newspaper subscription fees received from the Korean Agricultural Development; part of the newspaper subscription fees ( KRW 2,00,000 on September 9, 201; KRW 3,000 on September 25, 2012; KRW 5,00,000,000 on September 26, 2012; KRW 5,000,000 on December 2, 200, and KRW 6,000 on the part of the advertisement fees received from I; that part of the remaining advertisement fees was embezzled for the purpose of private embezzlement; that part of the charge of embezzlement was not guilty of KRW 6,00,000 on August 36, 2016, 2016.

The defendant appealed against the above guilty portion as follows, and the prosecutor did not appeal against the acquittal portion of the above reasons.

In such a case, according to the indivisible principle of appeal, the part of innocence in the above reasoning is also remanded to the trial court. However, since the part of innocence in the above reason is already excluded from the object of attack and defense between the parties, it cannot be judged again by the court (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004). Accordingly, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below as to the part of innocence in the above reason is followed, and this court is not judged separately.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (one year and two months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The defendant is in the trial of the court.