All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. Of the facts charged against the Defendant, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of each of the frauds committed at least 24,58,82,82,95, 102, 112, 125, 128, 133, 142, and 163 in the table of crimes listed in [Attachment 4] of the facts charged in the lower judgment, and dismissed the prosecution on the Defendant’s frauds committed at least 1,2 times in the table of crimes listed in [Attachment 4] of the facts charged in the lower judgment.

Since the prosecutor did not appeal against this, this part was separately determined and excluded from the scope of the trial of this Court.

B. In addition, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant violated the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipt of Crimes (A) No. 24, 58, 82, 95, 102, 112, 125, 128, 133, 142, and 163 as indicated in the judgment of the lower court among the facts charged against the Defendant.

The court below found the defendant guilty as to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipt of Crimes No. 3 (A) as shown in the judgment of the court below.

With respect to this, only the defendant appealed to and appealed from the above judgment of conviction, and the prosecutor did not appeal the acquittal portion for each of the above reasons.

Therefore, according to the indivisible principle of appeal, the non-guilty portion of each of the above reasons was transferred to the trial room. However, this part is already excluded from the object of attack and defense between the parties (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2820, Mar. 12, 1991) and is de facto relieved from the object of trial (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2820, Mar. 12, 1991). Accordingly, with respect to each of the above reasons non-guilty portion, the conclusion of the judgment of the

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) The lower judgment that convicted the Defendant of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is erroneous in misapprehending the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as follows.

(1) The relationship between a joint principal offender and a joint principal offender who has not jointly participated in the crime committed by a joint defendant B.