1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Defendants’ ground of appeal on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of breach of trust and intent of unlawful acquisition in relation to the management judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and duly admitted evidence as to Defendant A’s ground of appeal on the charge of perjury and larceny, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the object of larceny and the establishment of perjury, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. The Defendants’ ground of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing constitutes the assertion that the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the facts premised on sentencing, and by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on discretionary mitigation, constitutes the assertion of unfair sentencing.

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

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the Defendants, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

4. Conclusion.