All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds of its stated reasoning, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) due to embezzlement of the purchase price, such as school sites through false sales contract

Examining the record in accordance with the relevant legal doctrine, 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 relevant legal doctrine.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendant B of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) due to embezzlement of the purchase price, such as school sites through a false construction contract, and the part on the violation of the Private School Act (Embezzlement) from among the instant charges, and the part on the violation of the J Middle School Education Welfare Expenses and Occupational Embezzlement and Private School Act (Embezzlement), around October 2017, around early December 2018, around early February 2019, and around February 2019, regarding the solicitation for promotion of each assistant principal, and ④ around April 2013, and from February 4, 2016 to September 20, 2018.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment 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 establishment of illegal acquisition intent, occupational embezzlement, and occupational misappropriation.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable because of the incomplete hearing of the sentencing grounds is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. The defendant.