For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of all the charges of this case and ordered the additional collection 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’s judgment was partially insufficient, but the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, but did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent to conceal and conceal criminal proceeds, to collect additional charges, and to treat concurrent crimes under Article 3(1)3 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the admission of evidence in violation of the principle of free conviction by going beyond the bounds of logical and empirical rules, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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 prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where Defendant A was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the punishment of Defendant A is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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