1. The essence of the appeal by the defendant is that the defendant's appeal of the acquittal portion is a claim for a favorable judgment by correcting a disadvantageous original judgment. Therefore, unless the judgment is disadvantageous to himself/herself, the defendant cannot have the right to appeal.

Therefore, the Defendant’s appeal against the judgment of innocence, which is the most favorable to the Defendant, is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do1091, Jul. 29, 1994). Of the modified facts charged in this case, the part concerning occupational embezzlement, which is the primary facts charged, is judged not guilty at the lower court and thus, the Defendant has no right to appeal, and this part

2. The guilty part

A. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal may be filed on the ground that the judgment of the court below has affected the conclusion of the judgment, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been pronounced.

Therefore, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant, the argument that only the fact finding by the court below is not a legitimate ground for appeal without a specific assertion on the grounds of violation of laws and regulations of the court below.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the part on occupational breach of trust among the facts charged in the instant case, on the ground that the Defendant’s act of entrusting the victim with the overall content of the funds management to the “N Convention” that the Defendant entered into with the victim, was to proceed with the execution of funds related to the performance of the instant case, as agreed with the victim, in order to guarantee the victim’s profit more than a certain amount.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable.

The judgment of the court below is in violation of logical and empirical rules, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.