Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A shall be sentenced to eight years of imprisonment;

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. Of the facts charged against Defendant A, the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing each of the charges against Defendant K, L, and M on the fraud of the victim K, L, and M, and rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecution against Defendant N.

The second instance court rendered a judgment of not guilty on the fraud of the victim K and L among the facts charged against Defendant AK, and rendered a judgment of dismissing public prosecution on the fraud of the victim N.

Therefore, the prosecutor did not appeal the part of the above innocence and dismissal of the public prosecution against the Defendants. Thus, the part of the acquittal and dismissal of the public prosecution as mentioned above is separately determined and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

On the other hand, the court below acquitted the Defendants on each part of the charges of violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipt of K and L among the charges against the Defendants, but found the Defendants not guilty on each of the above charges on the ground that each of the above crimes was in the relation of a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipt of Act No. 1 of 2016, which was found guilty in the case No. 113, 201.

As to this, only the Defendants appealed against the guilty portion, and the prosecutor did not appeal against the acquittal portion for each of the above reasons.

Therefore, according to the indivisible principle of appeal, the part of innocence in each of the above reasons was transferred to this court along with the guilty part. However, this part was already out of the object of attack and defense between the parties, and thus, it cannot be determined up to that part (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004, etc.). Accordingly, the conclusion of the judgment below is to be followed with respect to the part of innocence in each of the above reasons, and it is not judged separately.

B. Meanwhile, the lower court held that the Plaintiff filed an application for compensation with J, AM, CH, BB, CO and CK (Separation of Seoul Southern District Court 2016 early 607 (Separation) and 607 early 2016.