1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, found the Defendant guilty of the Defendant’s occupational breach of trust due to the Defendant’s loans to J on January 23, 2007 and N’s loans. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant C’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of occupational breach of trust due to loans to J on January 23, 2007 among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules,

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.