The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and E shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, and Defendant E shall be punished by a fine of 1,00.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) did not instruct, or take part in, embezzlement of B, etc.

Nevertheless, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case, erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The entire conviction

Even if the court below's punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (misunderstanding of the legal principles) deemed that Defendant E did not have an intent to participate in embezzlement on the ground that Defendant E received money from N company for the purpose of inventory adjustment and delivered it to Defendant A as it is. However, Defendant E received cash together with a false transaction statement in order to meet the shortage of stock of the industrial product, and delivered it to Defendant A in itself, the crime of embezzlement is established on the sole basis of the fact that Defendant E received cash with a false transaction statement and delivered it to Defendant A.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant E is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to embezzlement, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and the prosecutor prior to the judgment.

In the trial of the original instance, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with the contents of the facts charged in the part of paragraphs 1 through 3 of the judgment below as stated in the facts charged in the judgment below, and this court permitted the changes in the subject of the judgment.

Therefore, since the above crimes and the remainder of the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one sentence should be sentenced. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant A cannot be maintained any more.

3. Despite the above-mentioned reasons for reversal, Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts as to Defendant A’s criminal facts No. 4 as indicated in the lower judgment.