All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of Defendant B’s statements in the grounds of appeal not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the first instance judgment cited by the lower court as to Defendant A’s grounds for appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant A of all of the facts charged in the instant case involving Defendant A’s occupational embezzlement, fraud, bribery grant, and indication of intent to deliver a bribe on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

Examining the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and 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 the intent of unlawful acquisition or embezzlement, and the crime of fraud.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a minor sentence is imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the first instance judgment cited by the lower court on the grounds of Defendant B’s appeal, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of both the charge of occupational embezzlement (excluding the part of innocence) and fraud among the charge of the instant case against Defendant B, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

Examining the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred 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 intent to obtain unlawful acquisition and to establish joint principal offenders in fraud, the specification of facts charged, deception, property damages,