1. As to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, the lower court acquitted Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and I on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the act of receiving goods without delay.

2. As to the Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged (excluding the part not guilty of the order) 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 in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of fraud, the principle of infertility, the principle of co-principal, and the specification of facts charged.

In addition, pursuant 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 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 against Defendant A, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

3. As to the Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the facts charged (excluding the part not guilty of the disposition) 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 exhaust all necessary deliberations as stated in the grounds of appeal and exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.