The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The judgment below

Part of acquittal.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On November 13, 2018 and December 26, 2018, within the period for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal, Defendant (unfair sentencing) and his/her defense counsel submit each written statement of grounds for appeal stating unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal, which is within the period for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal. On the first trial date of the first trial of the trial of the first instance, the Defendant clearly stated that “the Defendant’s assertion of mistake in the purport of the grounds for appeal as of November 13, 2018, which was submitted by the Defendant, shall be withdrawn,” and asserts that only unfair sentencing is alleged as the grounds for appeal. However, the Defendant and his/her defense counsel again asserts a mistake of facts as to each of the facts in the judgment of the lower court from the second trial date of the trial of March 5,

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do466 Decided March 10, 2011). Furthermore, even when examining the above argument ex officio, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the original judgment, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and found the Defendant guilty of each crime of fraud as indicated in the lower judgment on the grounds stated in its reasoning. If the lower court’s judgment is closely compared with the records of this case and the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law as alleged by the Defendant.

The punishment of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by mistake of facts (not guilty part) as a whole, the defendant can be found to have obtained 80,000 won from B on July 10, 2015 as expenses for the joint stay of B B, and acquired it by deceit. Thus, the judgment of the court below that acquitted this part of the facts charged on the ground of lack of evidence is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment ex officio (the violation of administrative justice in the judgment of the original court) is ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor.