1. As to the Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged (excluding the acquittal portion) on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the judgment of probative value, deception in fraud, deception in omission, and the intent of deception and deception by omission, or by violating the statutes on litigation procedures, etc.

2. As to the Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the facts charged against Defendant B (excluding the acquittal portion) on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on deception in fraud, deception, criminal intent in fraud, causation between deception and disposal, and calculation of the amount of fraud.

According 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 not less 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, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not legitimate grounds for appeal

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