1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable for the lower court to additionally collect KRW 206,123,100 from Defendant A for the reasons indicated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the subject and method of additional collection, or by misapprehending the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below as to Defendant B’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is just that the court below collected KRW 103,061,550 from Defendant B for reasons as stated in its holding, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the calculation of the additional collection charge, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical

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 B’s minor punishment is imposed, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground 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.