The judgment below

The guilty portion against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the charge of breach of trust among the facts charged against the Defendant, and the prosecutor did not appeal against this. As such, this part was determined separately as it is, and excluded from the scope of this Court’s trial.

B. In addition, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the facts charged of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (affort) but found the defendant guilty on the facts charged of occupational breach of trust (Article 2 of the judgment of the court below), found the victim AD guilty on December 12, 2012, and found the defendant guilty on the facts charged of fraud (Article 6 of the judgment of the court below), and found the defendant guilty on the facts charged of fraud which is one of the facts charged of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the crime of Article 6 of the judgment of the court below), and found the defendant guilty on the facts charged of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the crime of fraud) as a single crime with the same facts (the crime of Article 7 of the judgment of the court below), and appealed only

If so, according to the principle of indivisible appeal, the acquittal portion of each of the above reasons is to be judged in the trial together with the guilty portion, but this part is to be excluded from the object of attack and defense between the parties and in fact, it is to leave the object of trial.

Therefore, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below is to be followed with respect to the portion not guilty for each of the above reasons, and it is not judged separately.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) The fact that false entry in the original copy of a process deed and the exercise of false entry in the original copy of a process deed is made, and the Defendant and M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”) on June 1, 2010 entered into a joint development agreement and a joint development agreement, and an investment condition agreement on August 1, 2010.