1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted the Defendants of the facts constituting an offense (excluding the part concerning innocence and the dismissal of prosecution against Defendant A) as stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal by the Defendants, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for establishment, such as fraud fraud, deception and the occurrence of property damage, joint principal offender, act of fund-raising without permission under the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, reporting on the public offering or sale of securities, admissibility of hearsay evidence, etc.

2. Examining various circumstances in the records, including Defendant A’s age and behavior environment, the specific contents and means of each of the instant crimes, the period and amount of damage, the possibility of recovering damage, and the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, as to the Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing that sentenced the 16-year imprisonment cannot be deemed to be extremely unfair, even in light of all the circumstances alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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