All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment and acquitted the Defendant on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) against Defendant C among the facts charged in the instant case, on the grounds that it is insufficient to deem that the Defendant committed the instant loan with the knowledge of the defects in the instant sales contract even though the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was dolusiblely aware of the defects in the instant sales contract, and thus, it was insufficient to deem that there was an intention of occupational breach of trust by executing the instant loan in violation of his duties, such as executing the instant loan,

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the act of violating the Specific Economic Crimes Act

B. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment and acquitted the Defendants on the charge of occupational breach of trust against Defendant A, B, and C among the facts charged in the instant case, on the ground that there was no reasonable doubt as to whether the said Defendants had an intent to commit occupational breach of trust.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the act of breach of trust.

C. Based on its reasoning, the lower court acquitted Defendant D of this part of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that it was not proven without any reasonable doubt that Defendant D deceiving Defendant C as to the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud) against Defendant D among the facts charged in this case.