All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, determined that the Defendant was guilty of all of each of the occupational embezzlements listed in [Attachment] Nos. 7, 13, and 14 of the facts charged in the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors 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

B. On the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 4, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting all of the facts charged in the instant case of embezzlement 10 re-occupational embezzlements Nos. 10 and frauds around November 201, 201, among the facts charged in the instant case, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err 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 calculating the amount of embezzlement, intent and ability to repay in fraud, and obligation to notify investors of the financial situation.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. On the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that all of the facts charged in the instant case constituted a case where there was no proof of a crime, on the ground that the fraud on March 13, 2008, the fraud on May 21, 2008, and the fraud on October 28, 2008, among the facts charged, constituted a case where there was no proof of a crime.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.