All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the part on the property in breach of trust

A. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court’s ground of appeal by the prosecutor, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, cannot be deemed as related to illegal solicitation, such as requesting the Defendant to continue to assign tugboatss or port services from tugboat business entities, port service providers, etc., or requesting the Defendant to assign more tugboatss or port services.

Based on the judgment of the court of first instance, the court affirmed the judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the portion of the deduction rebates among the facts charged as to the violation of trust acceptance.

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 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 “illegal solicitation” in the crime of taking property in breach of trust, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, based on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, acknowledged the fact that the Defendant received an illegal solicitation to the effect that four enterprises, including E Co., Ltd., including E Co., Ltd., would have implicitly and explicitly requested the allocation of harbor services or tugboats, as shown in the attached list 2 through 5 of the List of Crimes in the judgment of the first instance.

In light of the foregoing, the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the portion of the charge of receiving the instant property in breach of trust was affirmed.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors 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 “illegal solicitation” or omitting judgment regarding the crime of taking property in breach of trust.

2. As to the occupational embezzlement.