1. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, an appeal may be filed on the ground that the judgment of the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment, or that the amount of punishment is remarkably unreasonable, only for a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been pronounced.

Therefore, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on Defendant A, the argument that the lower court simply contests the recognition of the facts without specific grounds such as violation of laws and subordinate statutes of the lower judgment, or that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the reasons for the prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant B, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting Defendant B on the ground that there was no proof of a crime regarding the violation of the law regarding credit-based financial business among the facts charged against Defendant B, and sentenced Defendant not guilty.

In light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to joint principal offenders, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed the entire judgment against Defendant B, but the guilty part does not indicate the grounds of objection to the petition of appeal or the reasoning of appeal.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant B’s appeal in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant B guilty of violating the Electronic Financial Transactions Act among the facts charged against Defendant B, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

In conclusion, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.