All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found Defendant A guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of deception or the intent of unlawful acquisition in fraud

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on Defendant B’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant B guilty of fraud among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the principle

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record as to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal against Defendant B and C, it is justifiable to maintain the first instance judgment which acquitted Defendant B and C on the ground that there was no proof of criminal facts as to the violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant B and C, 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

The Prosecutor appealed from the judgment of the court below as to the guilty portion against Defendant B and C, but does not state the grounds for objection to this part in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief.

4. The reasoning of the lower judgment on the prosecutor’s ground of appeal against Defendant D is recorded.