1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of the Defendant’s grounds of appeal on the following grounds: (a) the victim E and AO cooperative of the instant facts charged against Defendant E, based on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud); (b) the use of the power of attorney on February 15, 2016 under the name of E, the use of a falsified document; (c) the use of a falsified document; (d) the use of a falsified document; and (e) the attempted use of a falsified entry in public electronic records, etc.; and (e) the charge of perjury, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, did not err

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on Defendant B’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, 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 intentional act of forging private documents, etc., contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, in so determining, that Defendant B was guilty on the following grounds: (a) the use of each private document among the facts charged in the instant case with respect to

3. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to Defendant C’s grounds of appeal, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten

Defendant

In this case where a minor sentence is imposed against C, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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