The judgment below

Defendant A, B, C, E, and F's attached crime list 2-(1) through 2-(3) among the victims.

1. Scope of adjudication of this court;

A. 1) The lower court convicted Defendant A of accepting bribe, altering private documents, and uttering of altered private documents among the facts charged by Defendant A, and acquitted Defendant A of the facts charged by Defendant B and the facts charged by Defendant B, C, D, E, and F on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts and unfair sentencing regarding the acquitted portion. 2) The lower court dismissed the Prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants.

Accordingly, the prosecutor appealed on the judgment of acquittal before remanding the case.

3) The Supreme Court did not accept the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal on the fraud by using computers, etc. due to the increase in the existing loan interest rates of each of the Defendants in the judgment prior to remanding. However, the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal on the Defendants’ fraud by using computers, etc. due to the increase in the interest rates on the loan rates of each individual change before remanding the case is accepted, and the part of the judgment prior to remanding the case was reversed and remanded to the original court. (B) The scope of the judgment prior to remand and the binding force of the judgment prior to remand 1) Defendant A’s acceptance of bribe, private document alteration and alteration of documents were not appealed by the Defendant. The Prosecutor’s appeal on this part was dismissed, and the Prosecutor’s appeal period was separated from the original judgment prior to remand without filing an appeal. Accordingly, each of the above charges was excluded from the scope of the judgment prior to remand (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Do1402, Jan. 21, 1992).