For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that determined the Defendant not guilty of the grounds on the instant facts charged (excluding the part concerning the charge) on the grounds that there is no proof of crime

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “a person who takes custody of another’s property” in embezzlement, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, but there is no statement in the petition of appeal and the appellate brief on the grounds of objection.

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