1. Examining the evidence of Defendant A’s ground of appeal duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that Defendant A was guilty of fraud (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal) among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable.

In doing so, the lower court 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 fraud.

2. As to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, the allegation that the lower judgment erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the method of examining sentencing and determining sentencing constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Examining the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, it is justifiable for the court below to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance that found Defendant A not guilty on the ground that there was no proof of crime as to the fraud described in Nos. 5 Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 19 among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance.

There is no error exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

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