The part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance are reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five years and six months.

1. The first instance court found the Defendant guilty of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) with the fact that only the Defendant was guilty and the amount of the said charges was not guilty, and the prosecutor did not appeal against the first instance judgment on the ground that only the Defendant was erroneous for the fact that the Defendant was guilty and the amount of the punishment was illegal. The first instance court did not appeal against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was not guilty.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance on the defendant's non-guilty of the reasons is remanded to this court in accordance with the indivisible principle of appeal, but that part is already exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and it cannot be judged as to that part (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004; 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010; 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010; 2009Do12934, etc.). The part on the non-guilty of the above reasons shall be decided as to the conclusion of the judgment of the court of first instance, and it shall not be decided separately at the trial of the party.

In addition, the court of first instance dismissed the application for compensation of H, F, and E as the applicant for compensation, each of the above applications for compensation order was immediately finalized.

Therefore, the dismissal of the above application for compensation is excluded from the scope of the trial of this court.

Ultimately, the scope of this Court’s adjudication is limited to the conviction except the dismissal part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the determination of KRW 2.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s property status mismisunderstanding of fact (as to the judgment of the court below No. 1), was to the extent to which he/she would be liable until 2009, and aggravated from the time when he/she failed to make an investment after the police officer in 2010.

The defendant borrows or invests money from the victim H, F, K, G, L, E, D (O before the opening of each name; hereinafter the same shall apply) and P.