1. Judgment on the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court convicted the Defendants of the crime (excluding the portion of innocence) committed in the judgment that, if the Defendants conspired to sell the proceeds to the account at the time of the development of real estate, such as officetels and commercial buildings, or by deceiving the victims to sell the proceeds to the discounted price, they acquired the proceeds of sale (excluding the portion of innocence) on the grounds that the Defendants conspired to sell the proceeds to the account at the discounted price.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s judgment did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules without exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the Defendants’ grounds of appeal, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the deception, mistake and causation between the defrauded and the victim, calculation of the amount of fraud, and the establishment

B. As to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and fraud, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, the lower court determined that Defendant A received money from the victims as investment money, or acquired pecuniary benefits with respect to delayed repayment of lease deposit and obligation under the existing lease agreement as a crime of violation of the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud) or fraud.

Examining the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the fraud, deception, property gain, etc.

C. The lower court’s judgment on the violation of the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Misappropriation) is as stated in its reasoning.