The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the judgment of the court of first instance which found a guilty of part of the facts charged in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and acquitted the remainder, if only the prosecutor did not state the grounds for appeal concerning the part of innocence while appealed and did not state the grounds for appeal concerning the part of acquittal, but the scope of appeal was indicated as “total” in such a case, the entire judgment of the court of first instance becomes subject to the judgment, and thus, when the court below found the acquittal portion of the judgment of first instance guilty, the whole judgment of the court

According to records on March 10, 201 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17779, Mar. 10, 201). 2. The first instance court found the Defendant guilty as to the embezzlement of the victim C among the facts charged in the instant case, which are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and found the Defendant not guilty as to the embezzlement of the victim D and the fraud. ② Only the Prosecutor appealed against the first instance judgment, and only the Prosecutor appealed against the appeal petition, stating that the scope of appeal is “total” in the appeal petition, and ③ The lower court determined the Defendant guilty after changing the fact of embezzlement of the victim D among the acquitted portion of the first instance judgment into the property concealment, and maintained the judgment of innocence of the first instance court as to the fraud.

Examining the above facts in light of the above legal principles, the whole judgment of the court of first instance, including embezzlement against victim C who was convicted in the first instance trial, is subject to the judgment of the court below. Thus, inasmuch as the court below found the defendant guilty of concealing property against victim D, the court below reversed all of the remaining parts of the judgment of the court of first instance, excluding fraud against victim D, and one punishment for embezzlement and concealment of property, which are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.