All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the public prosecutor, in a criminal trial, the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the conviction cannot be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823 Decided August 21, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675 Decided March 9, 2006, etc.). Furthermore, the cooking and choice of evidence and probative value, which are based on the premise of fact finding, belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant had the intent of embezzlement regarding the receipt of benefits from school juristic persons D, and determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have proved that the Defendant failed to construct the toilet pipeline of this case without reasonable doubt, and reversed the first instance judgment convicting this part of the facts charged and acquitted the Defendant.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing such fact-finding by the lower court, and is nothing more than dispute over the determination of the lower court’s choice of evidence and probative value.

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on embezzlement and fraud.

2. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of occupational breach of trust among the facts charged in the instant case.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing the lower court’s fact-finding belongs to the freedom of fact-finding court.