1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty 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 against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a crime of violation of Article 23-2

2. According to the records as to Defendant C’s grounds of appeal, the above Defendant asserted the misapprehension of legal principle as well as unreasonable sentencing as the grounds of appeal on the first instance judgment, but withdrawn the grounds of appeal as to misapprehension of legal principles on the date of the first instance trial of the lower court, and left the grounds of appeal only as the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of additional collection charges.

The argument that there is an error in the incomplete hearing shall not be a legitimate ground for 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 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 on the above defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable cannot

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant D’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant was guilty of the charges of this case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules