The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, it is justifiable to find the lower court guilty of the conjunctive charges (excluding the portion of innocence) added by the lower court.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding attempted fraud, or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

According to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Ex officio determination

A. According to Article 323(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judgment of conviction must clearly state the facts constituting a crime, the summary of evidence, and the application of the statutes in the course of the judgment of conviction, and in the event that a judgment of conviction omitted any of them in full due to the conviction, it constitutes a violation of the law that affected the judgment under Article 383 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9151, Oct. 14, 2010). (b) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below reversed the judgment of first instance ex officio on the ground of the prosecutor’s modification of indictment, and declared the Defendant guilty, and found the fact that the application of the law was omitted, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of the law.

3. The judgment of the court below on the violation of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, which is the primary facts charged, should be reversed among the judgment below on the scope of reversal. Thus, the part of the judgment below on the violation of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, which is the primary facts charged.

4. The lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.