1. As to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, the lower court found Defendant D not guilty on the part of the facts charged against Defendant D, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of fraud.

The Prosecutor appealed to the entire part of the judgment below against Defendant D, but the guilty part is not indicated in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief on the guilty part.

2. As to the Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the criminal intent of defraudation, without exhaust all necessary deliberations.

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 labor for more 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 lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

3. As to the Defendant D’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant D of the violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act among the facts charged against Defendant D.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “foreign exchange business” under Article 27-2(1)1 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act.