1. As to the grounds for Defendant A’s appeal, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of the charges of this case (excluding the part not guilty in the first instance trial) against the above Defendant on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower court, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of deception in fraud.

2. On the grounds of appeal by Defendant D, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, maintained the first instance judgment, which determined that Defendant D was liable as a joint principal offender for the facts charged in the instant case against the said Defendant.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower court in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, 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 joint principal offenders, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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 prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

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