The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of any statement in the supplemental appellate brief not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) due to bad loans, the lower court determined that each part of the loans constitutes an act of breach of trust on the grounds of the reasons and circumstances stated in its reasoning as to the circumstances of each of the loans and the possibility of collecting the loans in this part, and determined that there was a public offering on this part of the charges in view of the defendant's status and the role and degree of participation in decision-making and implementation of each of the loans in AD Bank and its related companies, and that there was a public offering on this part of the charges

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of facts against logical and empirical rules, or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to joint principal offenders and occupational

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to the grounds of appeal on the violation of the Mutual Savings Banks Act, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that each of the loans in this part belongs to AM Co., Ltd or AW on the ground that each of the loans actually belongs to AM Co., Ltd or AW, taking into account the following factors: (a) the relationship between the borrower and AM Co., Ltd. and the affiliate company of AM Co., Ltd. in the implementation of each of the loans in this part; and (b) contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower