1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal on fraud in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendants guilty of the instant fraud charges on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and 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 against logical

2. According to the records on the remaining grounds of appeal by Defendant B, Defendant B asserted mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing as grounds of appeal against the judgment of the first instance, but withdrawn the grounds of appeal for misconception of facts as to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act on the second trial of the lower court.

In such a case, the argument that the court below erred in the misconception of facts as to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, under 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 not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant B, the assertion that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

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