1. 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 exhaust all necessary deliberations, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on calculating the amount of embezzlement in the crime of occupational embezzlement, the occurrence of property damage in the crime of occupational embezzlement, deception in the crime of fraud and the criminal intent in the crime of fraud, or by omitting necessary

2. As to the Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the facts charged (excluding the text and the part not guilty of grounds) 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 exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on business relationship and the quid pro quo

The argument that the lower court erred by exceeding the discretionary authority in determining the sentencing is ultimately an allegation of unfair sentencing.

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less 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 on Defendant B, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not legitimate grounds for appeal

3. As to the Defendant C’s grounds of appeal, the lower court found Defendant C guilty of the facts charged against Defendant C (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal).

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.