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. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err 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.

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

The argument that the court of first instance erred in violation of jurisdiction is not a legitimate ground for appeal, since the defendant's ground for appeal is the ground for appeal, or the court below did not consider it as the object of judgment ex officio.

Furthermore, even if examined, the judgment of the court of first instance does not contain any violation of jurisdiction as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. On the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there was no proof of a crime regarding the provision of penphones around 16:30 of the instant facts charged on June 24, 2018 among the facts charged in the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending relevant legal doctrine

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.