All the judgment of the court below are reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

(F) The sentencing of each of the original decisions (the first instance court: 2 years, and 4 months, by imprisonment of the original court) is inappropriate.

With respect to the non-guilty portion in the judgment of the second instance of the Prosecutor (De facto Error, misunderstanding of legal principles, or lack of reasoning), the Defendant had been willing to deliver only part of the deposit received from AA to H, a lessor, etc. from the time of concluding a lease contract with A, and the Defendant was exempted from paying KRW 10 million out of the deposit by using forged documents to H.

Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, or lack of reason in the judgment of the court below that the defendant's act does not constitute fraud against H

We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for a consolidated examination of judgment.

The court of the first instance decided to consolidate each appeal case against the original judgment.

However, since each of the judgments of the court below against the defendant is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one of these crimes must be sentenced in accordance with Article 38 of the Criminal Act in the event that it is combined and ruled simultaneously.

Therefore, the conviction part of the original judgment cannot be maintained as it is.

On the other hand, with regard to the fraud of the accused, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with the addition of the ancillary facts charged as follows, and this Court permitted the addition to the subject of the judgment.

[Additional Facts of Preliminary Indictment] [14 Highest 3005] The following [14 Highest 3005] [14 Highest 305] Criminal Offenses of paragraphs (1) through (12). The same shall apply to each embezzlement.

[14 Highest 6140] The following [Judgment] [14 Highest 6140] criminal facts 2.

same as the part of the embezzlement.

Despite the above-mentioned reasons for reversal of ex officio as to the prosecutor's mistake, misunderstanding of legal principles, and non-performance of reasons, the prosecutor's misconception of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, and non-performance of reasons still