1. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant A in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that Defendant A was guilty of the facts charged (excluding the portion of innocence in the first instance court) for the reasons indicated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of

In addition, the argument that the judgment below erred in violation of Articles 364(3) and 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not

2. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant B in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below is just in holding that Defendant B was guilty of fraud as to Defendant B’s smart city industry corporation among the facts charged against Defendant B (excluding the portion of innocence in the first instance court) and of aiding and abetting private documents, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by

3. All appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.