In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court, which found all of the facts charged, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the victim of the crime of embezzlement, the occupational custodian’s status, the intention of obtaining unjust enrichment, the act of embezzlement, the preparation of private documents for qualification as well as the other party, the purpose of the event, the criminal intent, etc. in the crime of gambling, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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