The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

except that this judgment.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court and speed of the judgment remanded;

A. On August 24, 2016 and December 22, 2016, the prosecutor brought a public prosecution against the Defendant by fraud, and filed a public prosecution by fraud and occupational embezzlement on March 15, 2017, and the above cases were merged.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the fraud of February 16, 2013, and convicted the remaining facts charged, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for a year and eight months on the ground that each of the crimes which were found guilty was concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant appealed on the ground of unfair sentencing on the grounds of mistake of facts and unfair sentencing. The prosecutor appealed from the acquittal part, which became separate and conclusive, is excluded from the judgment of this court.

B. The part rejected by the court of final appeal on the ground that the argument in the grounds of final appeal is groundless, which has become final and conclusive at the same time as the ruling is rendered, and the defendant can no longer contest against this part, and the remanded court cannot make a decision contrary to this, and even if the court, which was remanded with respect to the criminal facts which have become final and conclusive, examines the evidence, it is nothing more than that without meaning (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do8478, Oct. 13, 2011). Therefore, in the judgment prior to the remand of the case, the fraud, excluding the part of the above final and conclusive innocence, and the fact of occupational embezzlement of the victim corporation V, was transferred to this court. However, even though the court of final appeal rejected the defendant's argument in the grounds of final appeal as to that part

Therefore, the scope of this Court’s substantial adjudication is limited to the part of the instant charges of occupational embezzlement against victims Y.

C. On the other hand, the court of appeal that received the case from the Supreme Court.