For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of occupational embezzlement listed in [Attachment 1] to 4 of the judgment of the first instance among the charges charged against the Defendant.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of unlawful acquisition and unnecessary ex post facto act in the crime of occupational embezzlement.

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