1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant C’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court is justifiable to maintain the first instance judgment that found Defendant C guilty of all the charges charged against Defendant C, including the charges of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud). In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on co-principal.

In addition, pursuant to 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 more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted. As such, Defendant C’s assertion to the effect that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for more than ten years has been imposed. As such, Defendant A’s assertion to the effect that the determination of punishment is unreasonable is not legitimate grounds of appeal.

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