1. Examining the reasoning of Defendant A’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that Defendant A was guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), occupational embezzlement, and violation of the Securities Transaction Act among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the establishment requirements of joint principal offenders, the obligation to report under the Securities Transaction Act, omitting judgment, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation due to logical

2. As to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to the assertion on the grounds of misapprehension of legal principles, mistake of facts, and violation of evidence, the lower court is justifiable to have found Defendant B guilty of each of the instant facts charged, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement), violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (Embezzlement), and violation of the Commercial Act. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on property damage of breach of trust, risk of loss, management risk, public offering of joint principals, or breach of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by

B. According to Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only the cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is pronounced, an appeal is filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.