A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the point of each occupational embezzlement (not guilty part in the grounds for appeal), the fact that the Defendant embezzled by arbitrarily using the check card connected to each account held by the victims as stated in the facts charged can be acknowledged. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that found this part of the facts charged as not guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. The part of the judgment below and the Defendant’s work log 2) as to the fraud against the victim B, the Defendant had already paid the advance payment, etc. with the F money, and thus, there was no need to receive it again from the victim.

Nevertheless, without notifying the above circumstances, the Defendant received each money stated in this part of the facts charged from the victim and acquired it by fraud.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution, and two hundred hours of community service order) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court determined that the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to acknowledge each charges, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged. 2) The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is the prosecutor, and the conviction is based on the evidence with probative value that leads to a judge’s conviction to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, it is doubtful that the Defendant is guilty even if there is no evidence to establish a conviction.

Even if the interests of the defendant are judged, the interests of the defendant.