The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, from the final date of this judgment.

1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty only on the charge of occupational breach of trust due to the issuance of promissory notes among the charges of occupational breach of trust, and found the Defendant not guilty on the charge of occupational breach of trust due to the occurrence of wage obligations. In the instant case where only the Defendant appealed, the part of occupational breach of trust due to the occurrence of wage obligations, which was found not guilty, was excluded from the scope

Meanwhile, the prosecutor charged the victims with the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) (hereinafter referred to as the "Violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud"), but the court below judged that there was a substantive concurrent crime of each crime of fraud under the Criminal Act not as a comprehensive crime (However, in the part of the reasoning of the judgment, the non-guilty judgment was not made separately as to the violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud). The part of the violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) which the court below acquitted the defendants in the case of this case where only the defendant appealed was found not guilty of the violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud). However, as seen in paragraph (3) below, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) to the charges of the violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) at the trial of the party.

In the end, the scope of the party members' trial is limited to the fact of each fraud changed from the trial and the fact of occupational breach of trust due to the issuance of promissory notes.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the Defendant believed that H was a vice-loan of the airspace above Kuwait, and the victim F is well aware of the business that H was promoted by the Defendant.