1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant B’s grounds for 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 this case’s facts charged (excluding the portion of innocence) 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 in violation

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, a final appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, in this case where Defendant B was sentenced to minor punishment, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for final appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant C’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that Defendant C was guilty of this case’s facts charged (excluding the portion of innocence) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on admissibility of evidence without exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the court below affirmed the first instance judgment which acquitted Defendant A on the grounds that there was no proof of crime, on the grounds that the violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry for Money Exchange Brokerage due to the public offering with M, etc. by Defendant E, the violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry due to the public offering with Defendant E, and the violation of the Act on the Promotion of Game Industry due to the classification of respective grades against the Defendants and the provision of other game products.

The judgment below

In light of the record.