1. On the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the following reasons: (a) Defendant A’s occupational embezzlement related to the service price of Y Co., Ltd.; (b) embezzlement related to the loan of W Co., Ltd.; (c) occupational embezzlement related to the payment of false service costs; (d) violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (outstanding) relating to the payment of fees for U Co., Ltd.; (e) occupational embezzlement related to operating expenses of U Co., Ltd.; (e) receipt of property in breach of trust related to BD Co., Ltd.; and (e) occupational breach of trust related to advance payment to X of U.S. Co.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and 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 intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement, the subject of the crime of occupational breach of trust, the breach of duty, the occurrence of damages, and the specific facts charged in the crime of occupational breach of trust.

In addition, Defendant A asserts to the effect that the sentence of the lower court sentenced to five years of imprisonment is too unreasonable.

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 more than ten years is imposed, a final appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, in this case where Defendant A was sentenced to minor punishment, the final appeal is not a legitimate ground for final

2. As to the grounds for Defendant B’s appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the facts charged (excluding the portion not guilty of the grounds for appeal) on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s judgment is fully necessary.