1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that Defendant A was guilty of all of the facts charged in this case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of taking property in breach of trust, the rules on

In addition, among the grounds of appeal, the argument that the lower court, in determining a punishment against Defendant A, lost significantly equity in comparison with other intentions that received economic benefits from a medical device dealer, etc. for the purpose of facilitating the sale of medical devices, such as inducing the use of a medical device, is ultimately an allegation of unfair sentencing. However, pursuant to Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on Defendant B’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant B guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and exceeding the bounds of logical and empirical rules

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on Defendant C’s ground of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is so decided.