All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court’s judgment that found Defendant A guilty of occupational embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the law of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of free conviction, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on occupational embezzlement.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant B’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that Defendant B was guilty of the charge of occupational embezzlement and occupational breach of trust among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on embezzlement and occupational breach of trust.

3. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it is just to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged in the instant case on or after January 6, 2010, on the ground that it constituted a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) against the Defendants, and a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) and the forgery of private documents and the exercise of the above investigation documents against Defendant B, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it violates logical and empirical rules, exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or is presumed as the owner of the document