The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendant was guilty of the instant facts charged (excluding the portion without charge).

In so determining, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, 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 “faith”, “property gains”, and “a person who keeps another’s property” in the crime of embezzlement, and “faith”.

The argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error exceeding the limit of discretion in examining the sentencing and determining the sentencing is ultimately an unfair argument of sentencing.

According 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 is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. The prosecutor's appeal is examined.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to interference with the exercise of rights (1) is established by obstructing another person’s exercise of rights by taking, concealing, or destroying his/her own property which became the object of another person’s possession or right. Thus, if an article which was taken, concealed, or destroyed is not one’s own property, interference with the exercise of rights may not be established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do5767, May 30, 2003; 2005Do6604, Nov. 10, 2005). A person who is not the owner of an article may only be his/her accomplice if he/she participated in the crime of interference with the exercise of rights by the owner pursuant to the main sentence of Article 33 of the Criminal Act.

However, a crime is established because the owner of the article prosecuted as an accomplice of the obstruction of exercise of rights has no intention.