All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant B and C’s grounds of appeal, the recognition of facts constituting a crime ought to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence based on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court: ① Defendant B’s list of offenses listed in the judgment below.

2. &

4. As to each embezzlement described in the judgment below, Defendant C is a list of offenses listed in the attached Form C as stated in the judgment below.

3. As to each embezzlement described in the above Defendants A, it may be deemed that each Defendant A conspired with each other and functional control over the functional contribution, and ② the acquisition of the difference between the actual purchase price and the purchase price reported to the victim company by the sales employees of used cars is justified as business practices, or it cannot be deemed that there was no loss to the victim company, and thus, it did not accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to this part.

The grounds of appeal are the purport of disputing the fact-finding, which is the basis of the judgment of the court below, and is merely an error of the judgment of the court below as to the selection and probative value of evidence belonging to the free judgment of the fact-finding

In addition, even when examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the relevant legal principles as to the lower judgment, and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the conspiracy joint principal offender and embezzlement, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the public prosecutor, the conviction in a criminal trial has probative value that leads to a judge’s conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt.