The judgment below

The remainder, other than the rejection of the application for compensation, shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

1. The progress of litigation and the scope of adjudication in the party deliberation after remand;

A. (1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the entire facts charged against the Defendant, and sentenced the Defendant to six years of imprisonment. At the same time, the lower court accepted each application for compensation order filed by G and H, who filed the application for compensation order, and rendered a judgment dismissing the application for compensation order filed by F, the applicant for compensation.

(2) Only the Defendant appealed the lower judgment on the following grounds, and the court prior to remand rejected all the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. On the other hand, the lower court accepted the allegation of unfair sentencing and reversed the part other than the order for compensation to H, the applicant for compensation, and dismissed the Defendant’s application for compensation order by G, the applicant for compensation, at the same time,

The crime of fraud against the victim G: The embezzlement of the victim F of mistake of mistake: The fraud against the victim AF of mistake of mistake: on November 18, 2010: the fraud committed on January 17, 2012 against the victim AF of mistake of mistake of facts: the charge of fraud: misapprehension of legal principles (it cannot be deemed that the delivery of this mail to the victim does not commence the crime of fraud by itself). (3) The defendant filed a second appeal against the judgment prior to the remand of the case. The Supreme Court held that the defendant was not guilty of the crime under the proviso of Article 6 of the Criminal Act on the ground that the defendant is a U.S. citizen, and there is no proof that it constitutes a crime under the law of the place where the act was committed under the proviso of Article 6 of the Criminal Act on the ground that he is a U.S. citizen, and that there was no error of misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of legal principles on the remainder of the facts charged in this case, and that the remaining crime of fraud against the victim H was remanded due to one of the judgment.