The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Progress of judgment;

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant committed a crime as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, solely on the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, with respect to the instant facts charged that: (a) concealed the property belonging to the bankrupt estate for the purpose of promoting one’s own interest or another’s interest by omitting USD 2.1 billion in property equivalent to the market price and USD 20,000 in the “list of Property” column for “list of Property” upon application for

The court judged that it was insufficient to recognize the defendant and sentenced the defendant not guilty.

B. A prosecutor appealed on the judgment before remanding the case on the grounds of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. The judgment of the court before remanding the case is reversed as the case is modified due to the prosecutor’s changes in the indictment, and the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake in the facts is rejected, but a fine of two million won was imposed by recognizing the additional charges (an attempted charge) as partially guilty in the indictment due to the changes in the indictment.

(c)

The Defendant appealed on the grounds of the misunderstanding of legal principles and the misunderstanding of sentencing, and the appeal by the Supreme Court was dismissed, but the above judgment was reversed and remanded on the grounds of ex officio reversal in the judgment of the court prior to remand.

2. Although the defendant's statement, etc. in the investigation agency of the gist of the grounds for appeal clearly recognizes the intention of fraudulent bankruptcy, the court below rendered a judgment not guilty by misunderstanding the facts and unreasonably reducing or interpreting the requirements for "concepting property" under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio.

In the trial prior to the remand, the prosecutor makes the existing facts charged as the primary facts charged, and in the name of the offense, the prosecutor added "the attempted fraud" to the application form for permission of changes in indictment.