1. As to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant on the part of acquittal on the grounds of occupational embezzlement, abuse of authority and obstruction of exercise of rights, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges.

In light of the records, the court below did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the part on conviction of occupational embezzlement and the part on the destruction of evidence.

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 principles on the specification of facts charged, the procedure of prosecution, the burden of proof, the principle of no punishment without the law, the principle of evidence trial, and the crime of aiding

In addition, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the search and seizure conducted by the investigative agency on August 7, 2017 violated the warrant requirement, due process, and proportionality is alleged as the ground of appeal by the defendant or by the court below not being subject to judgment ex officio, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal, and even if examined, it does not seem that there was an error as alleged above in

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