All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that Defendant A was guilty of all of the following: (a) the part of the crime list 1 of the first instance judgment among the instant facts charged against Defendant A, 2, and 4, part of the net 2, and the net 7, and 9 of occupational embezzlement; and (b) 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 against logical and empirical rules; (c) contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by misapprehending the scope of confession and the legal doctrine on the intent to acquire unlawful acquisition in the course of embezzlement; and (d) failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

B. As to the part of the occupational embezzlement of the chief executive officer, the court below found Defendant A guilty of the occupational embezzlement of 1 through 17, 19, 24, 26, 28, and 30 of the daily list of crimes in the judgment of the court of first instance among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court and the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations 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, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the admissibility of the protocol of statement by witness, and the degree of proof by unlawful acquisition and intent in the crime of embezzlement,

2. Regarding the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. As to the part on the receipt of the crime of breach of trust by Defendant A, the part on the receipt of the crime of breach of trust by Defendant B, and the part on the receipt of the crime of breach of trust by Defendant B, the lower court, comprehensively taking account of the facts and circumstances stated in its reasoning, shall either obtain an illegal solicitation from Defendant A regarding the appointment of a non-permanent auditor and the president of the executive branch, or in return,