For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted the Defendants of the occupational embezzlement related to the payment of monetary rewards among the facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the status of the custodian in the crime of occupational embezzlement, the victim, embezzlement by exclusive use, intent of embezzlement, intent of unlawful acquisition, and co-principal.

In addition, according to 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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

Defendant

In this case where a minor sentence is imposed against D, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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