All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal not timely filed).

1. As to the reasons for Defendant B’s appeal, the recognition of criminal facts should be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and the probative value of evidence based on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court recognized that the first decision of the first instance that Defendant B acquired money by deceiving VictimN and AL was justifiable, and rejected the allegation of the grounds for appeal by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the determination of facts that form the basis of such judgment of the court below. It is nothing more than denying the judgment of the court of fact-finding on the selection and probative value of evidence belonging to the free judgment of the court of fact-finding. In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the judgment of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the elements of fraud, such as the crime of deception and deception, illegality of indictment, burden of proof, abuse of authority to prosecute, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation or by exceeding

The Supreme Court precedents cited on the grounds of appeal are different from the instant case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case.

Meanwhile, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the grounds for appeal that the lower court’s judgment erred by violating the principle of balance of crimes or the principle of responsibility and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on sentencing, this constitutes an unfair argument for

Accordingly, according to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment.