Defendant

A did not submit a statement of reason for appeal within the statutory period, and the petition of appeal does not indicate the reason for appeal.

2. The grounds of appeal by Defendant B are examined.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is just for the court below to have determined that all charges of this case's convictions against Defendant B were established on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience and exceeding the limits of free conviction, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to fraud or common principal

In addition, the lower court’s assertion that there was an error of misunderstanding of the legal principles or violation of the Constitution regarding the conditions of sentencing and the principle of statutory punishment in determining the sentencing constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

However, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, in this case where Defendant B was sentenced to minor punishment, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. The prosecutor's appeal is examined.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the court below is just in rejecting the judgment of the court of first instance which found the Defendants guilty on the part of the facts charged in this case as if there is no proof of criminal facts. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the timing of acceptance and the joint principal offender in the crime of embezzlement.

On the other hand, the prosecutor also finds guilty of the judgment of the court below.