The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that convicted the Defendant of occupational embezzlement, violation of the Commercial Act (excluding the part concerning innocence in the grounds), false entry into public electromagnetic records (excluding the part concerning innocence in the grounds), and the use of false entry into public electronic records (excluding the part concerning innocence in the grounds).

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 misapprehending 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 a crime of violation of Articles 628(1) and 622(1) of the Commercial Act and the crime of occupational embezzlement.

In addition, pursuant 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 more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable

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