1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendant was guilty of occupational embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the

Meanwhile, the Defendant appealed to the remaining guilty portion of the judgment below, but there is no indication of the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal and no statement of the grounds for appeal is found in the appellate brief.

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted Defendant B and C of violation of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act among the facts charged in this case against Defendant B and C, on the grounds stated in its reasoning. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation and application of the prohibition of commission under the Business Affairs of Licensed Real

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