beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the allegation of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the part found guilty in the lower judgment, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of attempted fraud against the Victim H among the facts charged in the instant case, and of occupational embezzlement against the Victim E, No. 1, No. 2, No. 5 through 9, No. 11, No. 17, and No. 29, No. 15, No. 17, and No. 15, and No. 17, No. 17, and No. 29, and No. 17 and No. 29, No. 17, and No. 17,
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on attempted fraud, occupational embezzlement, occupational embezzlement
2. As to the allegation of violation of the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change, the Defendant, in the judgment of the first instance court, three years of suspended sentence in December, 2 years of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence in June, in the judgment of the second instance, and six months of imprisonment in the judgment of the third instance. The Defendant appealed on the entire judgment of the first, second, and third instances on the ground of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unfair sentencing, and the prosecutor appealed on the ground of unfair sentencing. The lower court, after combining the above cases, sentenced the guilty portion to one year and six months of imprisonment for the Defendant, on the ground of concurrent examination.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the above determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the principle of the prohibition
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.