1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, the ground of appeal by the Defendant is that the Defendant did not have conspired to commit the instant facts charged, and that the Defendant’s delivery of the check card constitutes a violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and does not constitute fraud.

However, the admission and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise of the fact finding and the admission and evaluation of evidence belongs to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence.

The judgment below

In light of the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the facts charged in this case was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of joint principal offenders in fraud, without exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal

2. Examining the reasoning of Defendant C’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant C guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

3. On the grounds for Defendant D’s appeal, in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court that maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment.