1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant A and C’s grounds of 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 all the modified charges of this case (excluding the part determined as not guilty in the original trial) against the said Defendants were guilty on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of fraud and Article

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant B’s grounds of 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 the Defendant was guilty of the modified facts charged (excluding the part that was judged not guilty of the grounds in the original trial) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, misapprehending

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant D’s grounds of 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 was guilty of the modified facts charged (except for the part that was judged not guilty in the original trial) of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of fraud, the principle of non-defluence, and

4. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court as to Defendant E’s grounds of appeal.