All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the reasons for Defendant A’s appeal, the recognition of criminal facts should be proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and the probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). The lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, determined that Defendant A was guilty of both the charge of occupational embezzlement and the charge of occupational breach of trust (excluding the portion of the crime without doubt) among the instant facts charged against Defendant A.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing such determination of facts and determination by the lower court. It is nothing more than an error of the lower court’s determination of evidence selection and probative value, which belong to the free judgment by the fact-finding court. In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence, contrary

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant B’s grounds for appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination that the instant facts charged against Defendant B was guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules

3. As to the reasons for the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court, on January 4, 201, issued a summary order of KRW 20 million for the crime of taking property in breach of trust at the Seoul Northern District Court (Seoul Northern District Court) on January 4, 201, and the charges of this case against Defendant A, which became final and conclusive at that time, and the charges of this case against Defendant A were repeatedly committed for a single and continuous period under the criminal intent, and thus, the benefit and protection