The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Scope of trial of the political party after remand;

A. On September 4, 2014, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of all the charges charged against the Defendant. Accordingly, the Prosecutor filed an appeal. 2) On December 4, 2014, the lower court found that the part of the lower judgment regarding the purchase and sale of Mepta during the period from September 16, 2012 to November 8, 2012 is reversed and found guilty of this part among the lower judgment on December 4, 2014, and sentenced the Defendant to one year and six months, and the Defendant collected 6,250,000 won from the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s remaining appeal was dismissed.

With respect to the above judgment, the prosecutor dismissed the appeal, and the defendant filed each appeal against the guilty part.

3. On February 26, 2015, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the conviction part of the judgment prior to remand on the ground that it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct examination, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and the Prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed.

B. After remanding the judgment below, the remainder of the judgment below, excluding the part on the purchase and sale of Meteptopists, from September 16, 2012 to November 8, 2012, was separated and finalized as the prosecutor’s appeal was dismissed.

Therefore, the scope of the trial after remand is limited to the purchase and sale of the Metetopian from September 16, 2012 to November 8, 2012 of the lower judgment.

2. The F’s statement that informed the Defendant of the gist of the Prosecutor’s Reasons for Appeal was found guilty of the Defendant, and the F’s statement was sufficiently reliable as there is no motive for F to make a false statement only with respect to the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which rejected the credibility of F's statement and acquitted the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment.