All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant L in light of the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court’s determination that Defendant L was guilty of all of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the credibility of the witness’s statement or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, or the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (Obligation to report owned stocks).

In addition, there is an error of law that deviates from the inherent limit of sentencing discretion in the judgment of the court below.

The argument that there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the method of sentencing review and sentencing determination is ultimately an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing may be filed only when the court below rendered a death penalty, an indefinite term, or an imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years. Thus, in this case where the court rendered a minor sentence against Defendant L, the argument that the sentence is too unreasonable is not legitimate grounds for appeal

2. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant V 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 all of the charges of this case against Defendant V were guilty on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the facts beyond the bounds of