Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, it is justifiable for the lower court to have found the Defendant guilty of embezzlement against the victim AC among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the relevant legal principles.

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in violation of the principle of balanced punishment, the principle of responsibility, and the principle of equality in sentencing by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the conditions of sentencing is ultimately an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing shall be allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the above argument is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Other grounds of appeal by the defendant do not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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