1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A and Defendant E, the lower court convicted Defendant A and Defendant E of the facts charged (excluding the part not guilty of the grounds for appeal by Defendant A) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment 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 criminal intent of deception and deception in fraud.

2. As to the Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the facts charged on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment 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 criminal intent of deception and deception in fraud.

Defendant

B argues that the judgment of the court of first instance that maintained the judgment of the court of first instance ordering community service work for a period of 120 hours is unlawful, but this constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, according to 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 is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

Defendant

In this case where a more minor punishment is imposed against B, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant C and Defendant D, the lower court convicted Defendant C and Defendant D of the charges on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment 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 fraud and the alteration of indictment.

4. Therefore, the conclusion is reasonable.