All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal) with respect to Defendant A on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

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 in violation of logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “an act of illegally providing property” under Article 43-4(1) of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 12115, Dec. 24, 2013) and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “an act of illegally providing property” under Article 43-4(1) of the same Act.

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 against Defendant A, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. The lower court found Defendant B guilty of Defendant B’s occupational embezzlement (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal) among the facts charged against Defendant B, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

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 in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intention of occupational embezzlement and intent of unlawful acquisition

In addition, Defendant B asserts that the lower court erred by exceeding the limit inherent in sentencing discretion and affecting the conclusion of the judgment, but this constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, as seen above, the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed.