For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted of the instant facts charged (excluding the part not guilty of the grounds for appeal).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the identity of basic facts, abuse of public prosecution rights, criminal intent of embezzlement and intent of unlawful acquisition, criminal intent of breach of trust in breach of trust in breach of trust, intent of unlawful acquisition, and ex post facto act, or by misapprehending the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration.

If the revised facts charged are identical to the facts charged prior to the amendment, the appellate court may also amend the indictment even if it is not different from the new facts charged, and even if the amendment is made in the appellate court, the basic facts determined by the first instance court are allowed only to the same extent, so the facts constituting the basis of the modified facts are already examined in the first instance court, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the modification of the indictment in the appellate court is deprived of the interests of the defendant

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Do7843 Decided September 21, 2017). Therefore, we cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion that the benefit of the Defendant was deprived of due to changes in the indictment at the lower court.

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