For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendants on the grounds that there was no proof of the relevant crime on each of the facts charged of the instant case [excluding the part on violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) concerning the revenues from selling a cemetery to Defendant A].

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the Defendants of the violation of the evidence law, joint principal offender, and custodian in the crime of embezzlement, and the burden of proof, even though the court below affirmed the judgment of the court below that found the Defendants guilty of each of the facts charged in this case, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor. Thus, the judgment of the court below is unlawful.

However, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal and exceeded the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

There is no ground to view the facts charged in this case, and accordingly there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the status of a custodian in the crime of embezzlement and the burden of proof, etc.

subsection (b) of this section.

The grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed to the acquittal portion of Defendant A, but there is no reason of objection to the petition of appeal or the reasoning of appeal.

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