The guilty part against Defendant A and B of the original adjudication decision and the acquittal part shall be respectively.

1. Scope of trial of this Court on the case No. 2016 No. 2832;

A. The court below found Defendant A and B guilty of forging each private document, uttering of the above investigation document, and embezzlement of each business, and found Defendant A and B not guilty of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts against the Defendants (Article 1 of the judgment of the court below). For this reason, Defendant A and B appealed the part not guilty (the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against Defendant A and B, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against the Defendants, and the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts against the Defendants) on the grounds of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the Defendants.

The judgment prior to the remand reversed the Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Activities, among the non-guilty parts of the judgment of the first instance court that partially added the Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Activities, and acquitted Defendant A of violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Activities, including the additional charges, and dismissed Defendant A’s appeal and the Prosecutor’s appeal against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against Defendant A and Defendant B, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, and L, respectively.

On the other hand, Defendant A and B did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to each business embezzlement and on the ground of violation of the rules of evidence, and each of them did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the acquitted part [the defendant A and B's violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against the defendant, and violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts against the defendants] and by violating the rules of evidence.

The Supreme Court has asserted the grounds of appeal by the defendant A and B, and against the defendant A and B.