(b) Occupational embezzlement;

A*

2.(a)(b)

B

3.(a)

C

[Defendant-Appellee] The Head of Si/Gun/Gu, Si/Gun/Dong, Dong-ri, Dong-ri, Dong-ri, Dong-ri, Dong-ri, Park

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by a public prosecutor

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted Defendant A and B on the ground that there was no proof of the crime. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the limit of free conviction in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of unlawful acquisition of occupational embezzlement.

2. Judgment on Defendant’s grounds of appeal

Of the instant facts charged, the lower court convicted Defendant A and B of the part on occupational embezzlement (except the part on acquittal for the foregoing reasons). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and 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 object of embezzlement and the calculation of the amount of embezzlement.

In the judgment of the court of first instance, there is a violation of the principle of prohibition of double punishment, abuse of public prosecution rights, violation of trust rights and calculation of the amount of breach of trust. The claim is not legitimate grounds of appeal, since the defendants did not have the grounds of appeal or the court below did not have the subject of judgment ex officio.

3. Conclusion

The public prosecutor and the defendant's appeals are all dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Min You-sook

Justices Noh Tae-ok