1. According to the record as to the reasons for Defendant A’s appeal, Defendant A appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted the mistake of facts for the reason of appeal along with the unfair sentencing for the reason of appeal, but revoked the allegation of mistake of facts at the first trial date of the lower court, and asserted only the unfair sentencing grounds.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of an unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a minor sentence is imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant B’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant B guilty of the fraud of the victim T and V among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant B on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts beyond the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal principles on fraud.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal may be filed only for a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed. As such, in this case where Defendant B was sentenced to a minor sentence, the argument that the sentence is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, acquitted Defendant B, on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the fraud of the victim I among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant B.