The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Where there are several orders of the judgment, such as partial conviction and partial acquittal of the case prosecuted for concurrent crimes within the scope of the judgment of this court, the part included in the one part may be appealed separately from other parts, and the part not appealed by both parties becomes final and conclusive. Thus, where only the prosecutor appealeds the part not guilty as to the part of concurrent crimes, the part of the judgment of the first instance which rendered the judgment of which the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal is final and conclusive as the period for appeal expires, and the part of the judgment of conviction which was pending in the appellate court is final and conclusive as the period for appeal, and thus, if it is reversed by the appellate court, only the part of the judgment of innocence shall be reversed (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do1402, Jan. 21, 1992). According to the records, the judgment of the court below found the defendant guilty of violation of the Building Act among the facts charged of this case, and judged the innocence of occupational embezzlement only by the prosecutor, which only the part of the above acquittal becomes final and conclusive, the scope of the judgment of acquittal is limited.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the instant reporter is merely a mere facility attached to the instant church, and its finance, etc. cannot be deemed separated. Therefore, the money used in the Dogwon shall also be made through the procedures for expenditure in accordance with the church articles.

The reasons why the members of the church make a contribution are generally not to use the money for the development of the church, but to use it for the personal purposes of the pastors, but the defendant used the money for personal purposes without going through legitimate procedures. The intention of illegal acquisition of embezzlement is recognized.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles.