All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the grounds of Defendant HO’s appeal, the lower court’s determination that all of the facts charged against Defendant HO is guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules.

In addition, according to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, a final appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Defendant

In this case where a minor punishment has been imposed against HO, the assertion that the amount of punishment imposed is unfair shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the grounds of Defendant HT’s appeal, the lower court’s determination that all of the facts charged of this case against Defendant HT is guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending relevant legal principles.

In addition, according to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, a final appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Defendant

In this case where a minor sentence is imposed against HT, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the first instance court on the grounds of Defendant P’s appeal, the court below is justified in finding the Defendant P guilty of the fraud of the victim JH among the facts charged in the instant case as stated in its reasoning.

In addition, it goes beyond the limit of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.