The judgment below

The conviction portion is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court, on the premise that the first instance court's conviction as to the embezzlement of occupational duties among the ancillary facts in the Seoul Southern District Court case 2012 Gohap811 (Joint) and the facts charged in the preliminary facts in the Seoul Southern District Court 2012 Gohap811 (Joint), found the Defendant not guilty, and sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of four years for three years, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty. The Defendant appealed on the ground of misunderstanding of facts as to the above occupational embezzlement among the convicted facts, and the prosecutor appealed on the guilty part and the acquitted part [excluding the fraud in the first instance court 2012 Gohap811 (Joint), which is the primary facts charged in the same court 2012 Gohap732)] on the ground that the prosecutor alleged that the sentence of the first instance court is too unreasonable, reversed the first instance court's rejection of the grounds for appeal as to the acquittal part, and dismissed the Defendant's appeal as to the part of the aforementioned acquittal part, and dismissed the Defendant's appeal.

2. However, according to the records, while filing an appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, the prosecutor stated in the "reason for Appeal" column of the petition of appeal that "in the case of the portion on which innocence is pronounced, the court below did not recognize the criminal intention by deceit, but it constitutes misunderstanding of facts, and the sentence of the portion on which the conviction is pronounced is too unfasible, and the name in the appeal to correct it." However, the appellate brief submitted within the legitimate period only stated the grounds for appeal as to the acquitted portion in the judgment of first instance, which was submitted within the appellate brief, was submitted as reference materials by the victim prepared and submitted to the court of first instance by the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office