1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant C’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have found Defendant C guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err 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 conspiracy with

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without 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 C, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not

Meanwhile, the argument that the lower court erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the act of disposal in fraud, the act of arranging stolen goods, and the act of aiding and abetting a violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. is not a legitimate ground for appeal, since Defendant C’s assertion that this is the ground for appeal or the lower court did not consider

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant D’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have found Defendant D guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on Defendant H’s ground of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court, based on its reasoning, against Defendant H.