The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and asserted misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Management of Subsidies and Occupational Embezzlements on the Management of Subsidies, along with unfair sentencing as the grounds of appeal. However, on the first trial date of the court of first instance, the court of first instance withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts as to the violation of the Act on the Management of Occupational Embezzlements and Subsidies on the National Subsidies and the fourth trial date of the court of first instance.

In such a case, the court below's assertion that there was an error of misconception of facts as to the violation of the Act on the Management of Subsidies, Occupational Embezzlement of National Subsidies, and Violation of the misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of the Act on the Management of Subsidies, and new assertion that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts as to the occupational embezzlement of school expenses

In addition, examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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