1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is reasonable to find the lower court guilty of each of the embezzlement charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the calculation of the value of stocks, the acquisition of securities, the presumption of rights in the list of stockholders, and the intention of unlawful acquisition, etc., without properly conducting necessary deliberation as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to the violation of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007 and repealed by the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act of Feb. 4, 2009), the lower court’s finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justified. In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by violating logical and empirical rules and by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the fraud in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that there was no intention to commit deception and deception, and it is reasonable to find the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not properly conduct necessary deliberation and did not violate logical and empirical rules.