All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Although examining the reasoning of the Defendant’s appeal based on relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant exceeded the bounds of free conviction due to violating logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on fraud, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

2. On the grounds of the Prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the occupational embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case, and acquitted the Defendant.

In light of the record, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and did not err by misapprehending the fact that the lower court exceeded the bounds of the principle of free conviction in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intention of unlawful acquisition in the course of embezzlement.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.