The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case although the wage deposited in the account under the name of the victim was not in the position of the custodian for the victim because it was lower, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

2. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion in detail as to the grounds for appeal of this case and the defendant's assertion in the lower court's argument as to the lower court's summary of the evidence of the judgment. If we look at the above judgment in detail compared with the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. However, since it is apparent that the application of the law in the judgment of the court below was omitted by this mistake after the “Article 70 of the Criminal Act” after the “Article 70 of the Criminal Act” of the detention in the workhouse, it is corrected to add this ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1)