A. Examining the grounds of appeal as to whether to recognize the facts charged in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court’s determination that Defendant A was guilty of all of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning is acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience and free evaluation of evidence.

B. As to the grounds of appeal on mitigation of aiding and abetting Crime, the lower court determined that the first instance judgment omitted mitigation of aiding and abetting Crime as stipulated in Article 32(2) of the Criminal Act, but did not affect the conclusion of the judgment on the grounds that there was no difference in the scope of punishment against Defendant A, in the case where the lower court acknowledged Defendant A to be guilty of fraud, fraud aiding and abetting, and several electronic financial transactions violations.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment due to the omission of reduction of aiding

C. Examining the grounds of appeal on the aggravation of habitual offenders and the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on “a summary of evidence” of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, which contains grounds for recognizing the habituality of Defendant A, but this is erroneous in the misapprehension and thus, the court of first instance did not recognize the habitual nature of Defendant A or punish Defendant A as habitual offender.

In the same purport, the court below is just to correct the judgment of the court of first instance with the content of deleting the above entry, and it is so decided as per the ground of appeal.