All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), offering of bribe and offering of fine, and occupational embezzlement related to the payment of fine, among the facts charged against Defendant A, and sentenced Defendant A to a fine pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Embezzlement).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “using the status” as prescribed in Article 132 of the Criminal Act, concurrently with fines prescribed in Article 3(2) of the Specific Economic Crimes Act, and by misapprehending the aforementioned legal doctrine.

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendant B of the facts charged on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “using its status” under Article 132 of the Criminal Act.

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