All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. In addition, the summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles) victim E’s wife, victim K and M’s respective statements were in excess of the obligation when the Defendants borrowed money from the victims, and the Defendants recognized this, the intent of the Defendants’ defraudation and fraud are sufficiently recognized.

2. The first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court’s judgment and subsequently determine it ex post facto, although there was no objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the process of the trial.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is in contravention of logical and empirical rules to maintain the judgment as it is, and there should be no such extenuating circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The lower court, on the basis of the circumstances indicated therein, deceiving the victim E of the use of the borrowed money.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the contents of the reasoning of the court below, there is no reasonable circumstance to deem that maintaining the judgment of the court below is considerably unfair, so the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.