All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the reasons for the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendants on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) among the facts charged in the instant case, and acquitted the Defendants on the grounds that there was no proof of crime.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, contrary to the allegation of the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the intention of unlawful acquisition, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant A guilty of all of the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant M Co., Ltd. (formerly N Co., Ltd.) of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (timely changed), violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (timetime) due to joint and several liability of O Co., Ltd., violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes due to the joint and several liability of O, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (timetime)

In light of the above legal principles, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or erred in the misapprehension of a disposition document, abuse of power of representation, false representation, occurrence of property loss in breach of trust, calculation of pecuniary gain related to the application of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, false proof of false facts to establish a crime of false accusation, scope of false facts, and burden of proof as to whether the act constitutes an act of violation of duties in the course of occupational breach of trust.