The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

A. Of the facts charged in this case, the court below found the victim I guilty of the crime of fraud under paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court below, since there is no proof of crime regarding the remaining part of the crime of fraud under paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court below.

On the other hand, only the defendant appealed the guilty part, and the prosecutor did not appeal.

Therefore, according to the principle of non-guilty in appeal, the part of innocence in the above reasoning was also transferred to this court along with the guilty part. However, this part has already been relieved of the object of trial from the object of attack and defense between the parties. Thus, this Court cannot further decide on that part.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004). Therefore, the part not guilty on the above ground should be subject to the conclusion of the lower judgment, and it is not determined separately.

B. The lower court rejected an application for compensation filed by an applicant for compensation, and the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and thus, the foregoing dismissed portion is excluded from the scope of

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it is difficult to deem that there was a deception, since there was no misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the part of the victims, such as ① there was no statement from the victims, such as “a person has made a

(2) The defendant has consistently repaid to the victims, and there was no intention to acquire the defendant by deceit.

③ Taking into account the Defendant’s repayment amount, until March 24, 2016, the balance of the obligation does not exceed KRW 100 million, and the amount of the obligation remains reduced after December 2016, which was after the extension of the insurance business.