All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting Defendant C of the charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine 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 co-principal and aiding and abetting.

Examining various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, age, age, sex, and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, etc., it is extremely unfair to maintain the judgment of the first instance court that sentenced the Defendant to 12 years of imprisonment, even in light of the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal.

2. On the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) as to the victim I as stated in the attached Table No. 1 of Crimes List (16) in the judgment of the lower court among the charges against the Defendant, and the part concerning the forgery of private documents and the uttering of a falsified investigation document No. 32 or 92 in the attached Table No. 32 or No.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine 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 co-principal and aiding and abetting.

3. The lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting Defendant D of the charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s judgment is limited to the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.