1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant C’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s rejection of Defendant C’s assertion that the lower court did not participate in the loan in breach of trust on the grounds of its stated reasoning is justifiable and it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, while failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on Defendant E’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s dismissal of Defendant E’s assertion that the act of breach of duty and intent of breach of trust had been committed on the grounds of its stated reasoning, and the lower court was justifiable to have determined the Defendant E guilty of this part of the charges. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on breach of duty

3. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant F, Defendant F asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal at the court below. Since the court below did not consider Defendant F as the subject of judgment ex officio on the grounds that Defendant F’s grounds of appeal, namely, the calculation of the amount of profit caused by breach of trust and the misapprehension of the legal principles as to joint principal offense, Defendant F’s assertion of such legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to

4. As to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal against the Defendant H and J, the lower court stated in its reasoning.