The part of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding embezzlement shall be reversed.

As to the above reversal part.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court and the gist of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the prosecutor appealed only to the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court of first instance (i.e., fraud and embezzlement against the victim D), the part of the crime of embezzlement on March 31, 2012, which was not appealed by both parties, was already separated and finalized, and the part of the prosecutor appealed as above, is subject to the judgment of the court of this Court.

B. The first instance court's decision that there is insufficient evidence to prove this part of the facts charged without examining the victim D is erroneous, such as incomplete hearing, and the second instance court's decision that there is an intention of unlawful acquisition of the defendant as to the embezzlement of the victim D.

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor's ex officio, the prosecutor's name of the crime of embezzlement against victim D as "resting", and the applicable provisions of law as "Article 366 of the Criminal Act", and this court's application for permission to change the facts charged as follows and subsequently changed legally into the subject of the judgment by this court. As such, due to the following changes in circumstances, the crime of embezzlement against victim D in the judgment of the first instance court is no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the assertion of mistake of facts, etc. related to the prosecutor's fraud is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. Even if it is based on the statement of the witness D, etc. of the court of first instance as to the fraud, the court of first instance is justified in finding the defendant not guilty for the reasons as stated in its reasoning, and there is no illegality such as misunderstanding of facts that affected the judgment, and the prosecutor's above assertion of this point is acceptable.