All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In addition, in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court that maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant was guilty of all the charges of this case (excluding non-crime charges) on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, since the Defendant asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal and received the court’s decision (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do174, Feb. 10, 2006, etc.). In addition, in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court that maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, or did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the statutory principle of punishment, punishment, infinite, the principle of priority of new law, the general meeting’s resolution, the validity of general meeting’

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s reasoning was partially inappropriate, but it is acceptable to maintain the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the use of each maintenance project cost set forth in attached Table 2 of the judgment below among the facts charged in the instant case and the use of each maintenance project cost set forth in Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 21, 21, 22, 24, 26, and 35 of the list of crimes, among the charges charged in the instant case, constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of the final appeal, thereby violating logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of free

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