All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) (hereinafter “Specific Economic Crimes Act”) stated in No. 1 and No. 2 of the Crimes List I among the facts charged against Defendant A.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a crime of violation of

Among the grounds of appeal, there was no intention to obtain illegal gains as to the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Embezzlement).

The assertion that there was no intention to commit a breach of trust as to the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Misappropriation) is not a legitimate ground for appeal, since Defendant A’s ground for appeal or the court below did not consider it as the object of judgment ex officio.

2. As to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, the argument that the part of the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Embezzlement) is not established, or that the part of the Table II No. 6 in the judgment of the court below should be acquitted. Defendant B’s ground of appeal is asserted only in the final appeal that it is not the ground of appeal, or that the court below did not consider it as the subject of judgment ex officio, and it does

The argument that the lower court’s punishment against Defendant B by sentence identical to Defendant A is unlawful against the empirical rule is ultimately an allegation of unreasonable sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, a more minor sentence is imposed on Defendant B.