A. It was true that the Defendant (misunderstanding of facts) withdrawn each money listed in the list of crimes listed in the attached Table of the lower judgment from the agricultural bank account in the name of the victim. However, the Defendant withdrawn funds to operate the gas station with the consent of the victim or the victim while operating the gas station to the same business with the victim, or was settled with the Defendant first disbursed or paid the expenses for the operation of the gas station.

In other words, the Defendant did not have embezzled the money of the victim as stated in the facts charged of the instant case.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing) sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too uneasy and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant argued to the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the charges of this case on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court’s reasoning, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is reasonable and acceptable. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the facts in the lower judgment.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Considering the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair punishment as to the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair punishment in this case’s records and arguments, considering the circumstances asserted by the prosecutor as grounds for appeal, the lower court’s punishment is too unfasible and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.