1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendants were aware of the intent of unlawful acquisition of occupational duties in breach of trust and that the Defendants’ act of improper disbursement is not consistent with the implied or explicit intent of school juristic person H as it was committed in school juristic person H, and that the crime committed by Defendant A and C is also established. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of unlawful acquisition, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

2. According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the ground that the judgment of the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment or that the amount of the sentence has been extremely unreasonable. As such, in this case where a fine is imposed against Defendant C and D, Defendant C and D’s assertion that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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