Of the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the fraud against the victim B and the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below found the Defendant guilty of fraud with respect to the Victim B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim B”) among the facts charged against the Defendant and of embezzlement with respect to the Victim J, and sentenced the Defendant to three years of imprisonment. The Defendant appealed against this. The judgment prior to the remanding of the case was combined with the case of the Victim AB (U.S. District Court 2013Da3675). The Defendant was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months as to the embezzlement against the Victim J and the fraud against the Victim AB, and acquitted the Defendant as to the fraud against the Victim B.

Accordingly, the prosecutor appealed on the ground of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the part of innocence, and the defendant was found guilty as it is, as the defendant did not appeal the above guilty part.

After all, the Supreme Court reversed the part of the judgment prior to remand and remanded to the trial court on the ground that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the criminal intent of fraud fraud, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance is limited to the fraud against the victim B, i.e., the part of innocence other than the part of conviction finalized as the defendant is not dissatisfied.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the judgment of the court of first instance before remanding, the Defendant asserted erroneous determination of facts and unreasonable sentencing as to the fraud part of the judgment of the court of first instance on the victim B as the grounds of appeal, but the Defendant withdrawn the remaining arguments except unfair sentencing since the remanding.

The remaining parts of the first instance court's punishment (three years of imprisonment), excluding one year and six months of imprisonment already finalized, and each sentence of the second instance court (two years of imprisonment), against the accused, is too unreasonable.

B. The second instance court’s punishment against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unjust.

3. The Supreme Court, as seen earlier, shall look at ex officio a board.