For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that convicted of the instant facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “a person who keeps another’s property” in the crime of occupational embezzlement, intentional act, and intent of unlawful acquisition, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on intent of unlawful acquisition, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations,

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