All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court acquitted the Defendants on the grounds that there was no proof of crime as to the portion of the business embezzlement (excluding the guilty portion) related to rebates, including construction expenses, among the facts charged against the Defendants, the payment of expenses for personal use by the construction business operator, the payment of tenant deposit, the relation to the AR office, and the D building.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, 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 embezzlement and the intention of unlawful acquisition.

2. On the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant A of each of the occupational embezzlement (excluding the part not guilty of reasoning), room intrusion, property concealment, and perjury among the facts charged against Defendant A, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the grounds of appeal 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 embezzlement and the intention of unlawful acquisition, victim, etc. of the crime of embezzlement, contrary to the grounds of appeal.

3. As to the grounds for Defendant B’s appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant B of each of the occupational embezzlements (excluding the part not guilty of reasons) relating to D building and AG building among the facts charged against Defendant B, 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 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 embezzlement and the intention of unlawful acquisition.

4. Conclusion.