1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court is justifiable to have found Defendant A guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the willful negligence in fraud, or by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant B and C’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the lower court convicted Defendant B and C of the charge of aiding and abetting fraud, which is a reduced fact, based on its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of aiding and abetting

In addition, pursuant 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 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 Defendant B and C, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground

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