All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant J and K’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined the Defendants guilty of the charges in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and there were no errors by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience and the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of the Electrical Construction Business Act

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant L/X Co., Ltd., the lower court was justifiable to have convicted the said Defendants of the charges of this case (excluding the portion of innocence) on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry by misapprehending the legal doctrine

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court was justifiable to have acquitted Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I on the ground that all of the charges of taking property in breach of trust (excluding the charges committed against Defendant C, D, E, F, G, and H) and the aiding and abetting of property in breach of trust, which are preliminary charges, constitute a case where there is no evidence of crime. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, 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 taking property in breach of trust, taking property in breach of trust, aiding and abetting of property in violation of trust,

Meanwhile, the Prosecutor appealed against Defendant A, C, D, E, F, G, and H in the judgment of the court below. However, the Prosecutor did not state the grounds for appeal and also found the grounds for appeal.