The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of both the charge of occupational embezzlement, fraud related to false listing of caregivers, and violation of the Long-Term Care Protection Act for the elderly.

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the status of custodian in the occupational embezzlement crime, the number of crimes, the specification of facts charged, the intent of unlawful acquisition, the intent to commit fraud, and the intent to commit a violation of the Act on Long-Term Care Benefits for the Aged,

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