All appeals are dismissed.

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

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below as to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below is just in holding that Defendant A conspired with Defendant B, etc. to prepare each false official document related to “S”, and committed the crime of uttering of false official document and fraud. In so doing, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to each of the crimes

2. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant D in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that Defendant D committed each crime listed in the facts charged in collusion with C, E, etc. for the reasons indicated in its holding. 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

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant D, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a

3. On the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting Defendant A of this part of the facts charged, and acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there was no proof as to the public offering relation with the preparation of each false public document pertaining to “Ycafeteria” and “AB” among the facts charged against Defendant A, and there was no proof as to the public offering relation.

The judgment below

In light of the record.