The part of the judgment of the court below regarding each of the remaining crimes except for the crimes of Article 4 of the judgment of the court below and the second judgment.

【Judgment on Grounds for Appeal】

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the defendant alleged a mistake of facts in the judgment of the court of first instance did not deceiving the victims as stated in Articles 3 through 5, 13 through 15 in the judgment of the court of first instance, it is erroneous in the judgment of the court of first instance that found him guilty of this part of the charges.

B. As to the facts constituting an offense listed in Articles 4 and 5 as indicated in the judgment of the court below among the facts charged by the court below claiming misapprehension of legal principles, the public prosecutor brought the instant public prosecution without any new evidence despite the fact that the prosecutor made a decision that he was guilty prior to the institution of the instant public prosecution. This constitutes abuse of

C. The sentencing of the original judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: the imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes as set forth in the decision of the court below, 6 months, 4 years and 6 months, and 8 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the above assertion by the defendant ex officio, as the judgment of the court below that the defendant appealed together with the above argument by the defendant, each of the remaining crimes except the crimes of No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance and the crimes of the judgment of the court of second instance should be judged concurrently pursuant to Article 38 of the Criminal Act and sentenced to one punishment, since all of the crimes of the judgment of the court of second instance except the crimes of No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance are concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the parts of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning each other

However, even if there are the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the crime No. 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the BZ, which is an employee of H in-care facility consulting company run by the defendant, shall be governed by the defendant's order.