The judgment below

The part not guilty (including the part not guilty in the reason) shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, attached Form.

The court below found the defendant guilty of all of the facts charged in this case that the defendant's embezzlement (the part in attached Form 2) of occupational embezzlement, each private document forgery, and the fraud of the victim's R among the facts charged in this case. The court below found the defendant guilty of all of the facts charged in the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) (the part in attached Form 2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim J (Adong owner) and K of the remaining occupational embezzlement (the part in attached Form 3) of the victim J (hereinafter referred to as the "Adong owner") not guilty of all of the reasons.

Accordingly, the prosecutor appealed on the part of the judgment of the court below's acquittal and the part of the verdict not guilty, and the defendant did not separately appeal the part of the judgment of the court below. Accordingly, the part of the conviction that the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal is separated from the way of appeal period.

However, as seen earlier, the court below deemed the facts of occupational embezzlement among the facts charged in this case as an inclusive crime, and judged the partial guilty and the acquittal of some reasons, and even if the prosecutor did not file an appeal as to the acquittal portion of reasons, the prosecutor's appeal under the principle of no appeal decision in the principle of no appeal decision may entirely affect the guilty portion among occupational embezzlement and the acquittal portion of reasons, and thus, the conviction portion among occupational embezzlement shall also be transferred to the appellate court and subject to adjudication (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1629, Apr. 11, 1989). However, it is reasonable for the prosecutor to view that the conviction portion among occupational embezzlement as stated in the judgment of the court below was exempted from the public defense among the parties, although it was judged in the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1629, Apr. 11, 1989). As such, it is reasonable to view that the part of the occupational embezzlement in this case

In the end, the scope of this court's trial is not guilty.