1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant C, D, and E

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to the Defendants’ violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, it is justifiable that the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, did not deduct the value of the stocks acquired by the underwriters in calculating the amount of profit from the fraudulent unfair trading caused by the issuance of new stocks by Defendant E company. 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 the calculation of the amount

B. In this case where Defendant C and D’s imprisonment with labor for less than 10 years was imposed on the above Defendants, the argument that the lower court’s sentencing was unfair or did not properly examine various circumstances that constitute the sentencing conditions cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, Defendant A asserted an unreasonable sentencing as the grounds of appeal by the lower court, and the lower court did not ex officio decide on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, and thus, Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of legal principles that the grounds of appeal might only be the grounds of appeal by the lower court for final appeal cannot be the legitimate grounds of appeal.

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