1. Although examining the first ground for appeal based on relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were either errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the determination of criminal intent in fraud by defraudation of borrowed money, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and by misapprehending the rules of evidence, thereby

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. While examining the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 in light of relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of occupational embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the intent to obtain unjust enrichment, failing to comply with the rules of evidence and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules.

shall not be deemed to exist.

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