All appeals by the Defendants and by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each sentence against the Defendants (guilty part) by the lower court (each of three months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the embezzlement against the Defendants among the facts charged in the instant case, according to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the instant land is owned by I as an organization separate from the dynamics to which the Defendants belong, and it can be acknowledged that the Defendants disposed of the said land without authority despite being aware that it was the I’s negligence.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on the grounds of the detailed circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, found that the instant land, etc. was exclusively owned by I, an organization separate from the dong Winter system to which the Defendants belong, and there was no right in the dong Winter system, or that the Defendants were aware that the instant land, etc. were owned by I and the dong Winter system did not have any right, thereby disposing of the instant land, etc., and that there was an intent to acquire and acquire illegal land, etc. by disposing of the instant land, etc., of which the Defendants intended to use only those members of the dong Winter Winter system, without any reasonable doubt.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged.

The court below seems to have rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged with the purport that it is difficult for the Defendants to eliminate the possibility that the land, etc. in this case was entrusted to I under the name of the Defendants. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is justified and there is no violation of law by mistake of facts as argued by

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

(b).