All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records as to the appeal by a state appointed defense counsel, the defendant did not submit a petition of appeal to the court below, and the state appointed defense counsel submitted a title of "statement of grounds for appeal" to the Supreme Court on July 28, 2010 after the filing period of appeal to the court below. Even if this is the place of appeal, the appeal by a state appointed defense counsel is not effective since

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged that the Defendant embezzled by arbitrarily using the above rent revenue, deeming that the owner of the instant carart was the Defendant and the Defendant should also belong to the Defendant’s rent revenue.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of finding facts against logical and empirical rules or misapprehending the legal principles on embezzlement.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that, in evaluating the value of stocks of M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”), it cannot be readily concluded that L’s long-term deposit repayment obligation among M’s liabilities should not be subject to discount rates. Thus, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having inflicted property damage equivalent to the difference between the sale price of stocks and the appropriate price of stocks through M’s stock sale, and it cannot be readily concluded that there was property risk caused by the loss of cash liquidity to M due to the sale of stocks in this case.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, facts against logical and empirical rules are recognized or legal principles on breach of trust.