All appeals are dismissed.

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part 8th and 15th (former "AP") shall be deleted.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on intention or functional control in the establishment of a joint principal offender, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as issuance of false tax invoices), accusation, crime of false entry in public electromagnetic records, etc., and the establishment of the crime of

2. As to the Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Although some inappropriate points in the reasoning’s explanation, the conclusion is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors 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 on intention or functional control in the establishment of a joint principal offender, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as issuance of false tax invoices), the crime of false entry in

3. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant D, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendant D of each part of the facts charged against Defendant D, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of fraud

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is delivered.