All appeals are dismissed.

1. Defendant A’s grounds of appeal (the statement of each written appeal filed after the lapse of the period for final appeal is to the extent of supplement in case of supplement of the grounds of final appeal) should be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the choice of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). The lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, embezzled money in collusion with Defendant C by means of registering U as an employee in collusion with Defendant C.

As long as the first deliberation decision is proper, and the money that the above defendant withdraws by the method of excessive appropriation of the food material price is used for the recovery of his investment money or the repayment of loans for the purpose that is not supported by the organization's budget for expenditure of social welfare foundation, the crime of embezzlement and the intent of unlawful acquisition is recognized, and (2) the above defendant did not accept the grounds of appeal as to mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the determination of the lower court on the facts leading to such determination. It is nothing more than denying the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence belonging to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence contrary to logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of embezzlement and the intent

The Supreme Court precedents cited on the grounds of appeal are different from the instant case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case.

2. As to Defendant E’s appeal, Defendant E did not submit a written reason of appeal within the statutory period (the Defendant submitted).