The judgment below

The guilty part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with labor for one year, and Defendant C shall be punished.

The court below found Defendant D not guilty of the crime of occupational embezzlement among the facts charged against Defendant D, and the prosecutor did not appeal the part on the acquittal.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part of the acquittal is separately determined and excluded from the judgment of this court.

In addition, the lower court rejected the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, and pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the applicant for compensation did not file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation. Therefore, the part dismissing the said application for compensation became final and conclusive immediately.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the dismissal of the above application for compensation is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this court.

The lower court acquitted Defendant A and C of the 1.7 million won portion among the facts charged of occupational embezzlement, and convicted Defendant A and C of the remainder.

Accordingly, only Defendant A and C appealed against the aforementioned guilty portion as follows, and the prosecutor did not appeal against the acquittal portion on the above grounds.

In such a case, according to the indivisible principle of appeal, the part of innocence in the above reasoning is also remanded to the trial court. However, since the part of innocence in the above reason is already excluded from the object of attack and defense between the parties, it cannot be judged again by the court (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004). Accordingly, the conclusion of the judgment of the court below as to the part of innocence in the above reason is followed, and this court is not judged separately.

The decision of the court below (one year of imprisonment) on the summary of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.

Defendant

C. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the part on Defendant C’s fraud does not specify the content of the participation in the crime, thereby hindering the Defendant’s exercise of his right to defense. As such, prosecution procedures are instituted.