1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that Defendant A was guilty of the Defendant’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the violation of the Commercial Act as to the victim’s co-technology investment among the facts charged against Defendant A,

In conclusion, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on deception or best payment in the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant B and D’s appeal in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s imposition of a surcharge on Defendant B and D on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable.

In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on additional collection as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant C, Defendant C did not submit a written grounds for appeal within the submission period of the written grounds for appeal, and Defendant C did not state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal.

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