Defendant

The first instance judgment against A and the second instance judgment against D are guilty.

1. Ex officio determination

A. Each of the judgment below joined each of the appeal cases by Defendant A appealed against each of the judgment below, and this court made a decision to consolidate each of the appeal cases by this court. Examining the facts charged by the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “crime”) and the facts charged by the judgment of the court of second instance (hereinafter “crime”) as stated in the attached crime list (hereinafter “B”) in the attached crime list (3) in Seoul Central District Court 2009Gohap305, and the following facts charged by the court of second instance (hereinafter “crime”) in the attached crime No. 205 of the judgment of the court of second instance, and

(1) ① (1), ② (2) the crime appears to be filled in addition to the omission of the existing charged facts.

On the other hand, the second instance court considered the crime as a single comprehensive crime, but ③ the crime as a separate crime.

In other words, the second instance court rendered a judgment of not guilty in regard to the crimes (2) and (2) and (3).

As can be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the number of crimes, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Part 1 Of the single comprehensive crime (i.e., a crime, part of a crime), the remaining guilty part of the judgment of the court of the court of the second instance [Y], “Y.” The embezzlement of public funds against A (hereinafter “the second comprehensive crime”)

The guilty part of the Criminal Code is included) and the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code.