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 was justifiable in finding the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (i.e., brokerage business), and fraud (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal), among the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

2. 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 was justifiable to have determined that the Defendant was guilty of the charges of this case (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal) 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

In addition, the argument that the court below erred by infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balance of punishment or the principle of responsibility, thereby deviating from the inherent limits of the sentencing discretion, constitutes the argument of unfair sentencing.

However, 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. Thus, in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed on the above defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the sentence 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.