1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to the Defendants’ grounds for appeal, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendants guilty of all of the fraudulent acts caused by intentional damage and false demand for repair, among the facts charged in the instant case, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, 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

In addition, the argument that the prosecution procedure of this case is unlawful among the grounds for Defendant A’s appeal is not a legitimate ground for appeal since Defendant A’s ground for appeal or the court below’s ground for appeal that it was not subject to judgment ex officio.

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, the court below was just in finding the Defendants not guilty on the grounds that there was no proof of crime as to each of the fraud caused by the public charge, the blanket false claim for parts, the subsidiary number plate, the false claim for Alluin aluminium wheelchairs and other false claims, and the false claim for automobile goods among the charges of this case against the Defendants, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation principle in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to deception, disposal, and the relation

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