The judgment below

The embezzlement of the amount equivalent to the personnel expenses of the driver, the embezzlement of the amount equivalent to the four major premiums, and the user fee of personal mobile phones.

1. Scope of trial after remand;

A. 1) The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on all the facts charged of the instant case, and the Prosecutor appealed against this.

2) A prosecutor filed a motion to amend a bill of amendment to the effect that “victims” and “Embezzlementd money” were added to the facts charged in the trial before remanding the case (Seoul District Court Decision 2014No. 2590), and that the judgment prior to returning the case was permitted.

After that, the first instance court reversed the part of the judgment of the court below concerning embezzlement equivalent to personnel expenses of driver officers, embezzlement equivalent to four-year premiums, and embezzlement equivalent to personal mobile phone usage fees, and sentenced a fine of KRW 5 million to the defendant. Of the judgment below, the prosecutor dismissed the prosecutor's appeal regarding the embezzlement of the amount equivalent to the graduates' photographs, the admission fees of the K Triart water play and the embezzlement of the vehicle rent.

On the other hand, only the defendant appealed against the guilty part of the above judgment.

3) Supreme Court Decision (2016Do781) reversed the conviction part of the judgment of the first instance court prior to the refund, and remanded this part of the case to the original court agreement, with the purport that the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The portion of the judgment of not guilty (i.e., embezzlement equivalent to the graduates’ photographs and embezzlement of admission fees and vehicle rents) in the judgment of the court prior to the remanding of the scope of the trial by the party after remanding the case was separate and finalized as the two parties did not appeal.

Therefore, the scope of the trial after remand is limited to the guilty part of the judgment prior to remand (Embezzlement equivalent to personnel expenses for driving specialists, embezzlement equivalent to four major premiums, and embezzlement equivalent to the payment of personal mobile phone usage fees).

2. Summary of the prosecutor's appeal (to be considered only within the scope of the trial after the misapprehension of legal principles and the transmission of the case).