All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal not timely filed).

1. As to the defendants' grounds of appeal

A. Determination on Defendant D and E’s assertion of abuse of public prosecution power 1) The prosecutor arbitrarily exercised the right of prosecution and gave substantial disadvantage to the Defendant, thereby remarkably deviating from the discretionary power of prosecution.

If you look at it, it can be denied the effect of the prosecution due to abuse of the right of prosecution.

However, in light of the above legal principles and records, the prosecutor did not sufficiently investigate the preferential employment of AA or did not institute any prosecution against others, solely on the ground that the prosecutor's indictment of this case does not constitute a case where the prosecutor significantly deviates from the discretionary power by exercising his discretionary power, as alleged by the defendant D and E, in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records.

We affirm the judgment of the court below as just.

There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to abuse of power to prosecute.

B. Defendant D and E’s assertion on the violation of the principle of exclusive prosecution and indictment 1) The public prosecutor’s office should specify the facts by specifying the date, time, place, and method of the crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged is to facilitate the exercise of Defendant’s right to defense.

Therefore, it is sufficient that the facts charged are stated to the extent that they can be identified from other facts by integrating these elements, and even if the date, time, place, etc. of the crime are not specified in the indictment, the facts charged shall be sufficient.