The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the records on the grounds of appeal on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation), the defendant appealed on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) among the judgment of the first instance, and asserted mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles along with the grounds of appeal, but the court below withdrawn the grounds of appeal other than unfair sentencing on the first trial date, and left only the grounds of

In such a case, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred in the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of legal principles is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant's grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing are well-grounded, reversed the judgment of the court of first instance, and found the defendant guilty of the defendant's criminal facts in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust). Thus, the court below rejected the grounds for appeal, such as mistake of facts. Thus,

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to the grounds of appeal as to the receipt of property in breach of trust on June 24, 2011 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do5690, Jun. 24, 201) in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justified in finding the Defendant guilty of the receipt of property in breach of trust among the facts charged in the instant case and calculating the amount of additional collection accordingly. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations and did not err