All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A’s occupational breach of trust, Article 8 of the Court Organization Act provides, “The judgment at a superior court trial shall bind the lower court with respect to the pertinent case.” The latter part of Article 436(2) of the Civil Procedure Act also provides that the court of final appeal shall bind the lower court with respect to the factual and legal judgment which the court of final appeal considers as the ground for

Although there is no express provision corresponding thereto in the Criminal Procedure Act, the court of final appeal, which makes the principle of the law-finding, may intervene in the legitimacy of the judgment of the court below concerning the fact-finding pursuant to Article 383 or 384 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and therefore, the court of final appeal, which makes the principle of the law-finding,

Therefore, the court that received the case from the court of final appeal after remanding the case to the court of final appeal is bound so long as there is no change in the evidence relationship which forms the basis of continuous judgment by presenting new evidence during the deliberation process after remanding the case to the court of final appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do830, Dec. 10, 196; 2004Do340, Apr. 9, 2004). Examining the reasoning of the judgment below after remanding the case in light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the court below found Defendant A guilty of occupational breach of trust among the facts charged against Defendant A after remanding the case in accordance with the purport of the judgment remanded.

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 relevant legal doctrine, contrary to the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the Defendants’ occupational embezzlement, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of occupational embezzlement in the facts charged, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s judgment is so decided as per the grounds of appeal.