[1] Whether the act of using an ovum “as a condition for an interest in property or any other consideration” under Articles 13(3) and 51(1)5 of the former Bioethics and Safety Act that prohibits and punishs transaction of ovum for consideration includes providing passive benefits, such as exemption from liability, in return for the provision of ovum (affirmative), and whether the aforementioned provision applies to cases where ovum is used for producing somatic cell cloning cell cloning (affirmative)

[2] In a case where the Defendant was indicted for violating the former Bioethics and Safety Act on the ground that he in collusion with Gap and used ovum for the research on somatic cell embryonic embryonic stem cells with the condition that the costs of artificial insemination treatment would be reduced by the infertility women at the hospital operated by Gap, the case affirming the judgment below that the Defendant’s act constitutes an act of using ovum as “the use of ovum for property interest or any other consideration” prohibited under Article 13(3) of the same Act

[1] The former Bioethics and Safety Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11250, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “Bioethics Act”) provides that “no person shall provide or use an ovum or ovum, or induce or mediate any person who provides or uses an ovum or ovum, on condition of any pecuniary or property interest or other consideration, in violation of Article 13(3) of the Bioethics and Safety Act, for the purpose of ensuring bioethics and biosafety and preventing any infringement of human dignity and value or any harm to human body” (Article 51(1)5).

In light of the aforementioned purpose and content of the provisions of the Bioethics Act, the act of using ovum “as a condition to benefit from property or any other consideration” under the aforementioned provision includes not only providing active benefits, such as transfer of goods or rights in return for providing ovum, but also providing passive benefits, such as exemption from liability. Meanwhile, the foregoing provision prohibiting and punishing the transaction of ovum for consideration applies to cases where ovum is used not only for producing artificial insemination embryos, but also for producing somatic-cell cloning embryos.

[2] In a case where the Defendant was indicted for violation of the former Bioethics and Safety Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11250, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “Bioethics Act”), in collusion with Party A, the Court affirmed the judgment below holding that the Defendant’s act of using ovum for the research of somatic cell reproduced embryonic stem cell by reducing costs for infertility treatment to unborn patients and using ovum provided for in Article 13(3) of the Bioethics Act constitutes the act of using ovum for “the benefit of property or other consideration” prohibited under Article 13(3) of the Bioethics Act.

[1] Articles 1, 13(3) (see current Article 23(3) and 51(1)5 (see current Article 66(1)4) of the former Bioethics and Safety Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11250, Feb. 1, 2012) / [2] Articles 13(3) (see current Article 23(3)) and 51(1)5 (see current Article 66(1)4) of the former Bioethics and Safety Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11250, Feb. 1, 2012)

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Law Firm Seo-tae et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2009No3100 decided December 16, 2010

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in the event of supplement)

A. As to occupational embezzlement

The crime of embezzlement is an offense involving embezzlement or refusal of return of another’s property by a person who keeps another’s property. Whether certain property is another’s property is determined by the Civil Act, the Commercial Act, or other civil real law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do15350, Apr. 28, 2011). In this context, the term “storage of property” means a state in which the actual or legal control over the property exists, and its custody should be based on a consignment relationship. However, the consignment relationship does not necessarily require that it be established by a contract such as loan for use, lease, delegation, etc., and may also be established by administrative management, customs, cooking, and trust doctrine (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do3840, Sept. 23, 2003; 2010Do17396, Mar. 24, 2011).

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, as a person in charge of research on the development, etc. of somatic cell reproduction technology conducted by Nonindicted Corporation 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Corporation 1”), received research expenses from Nonindicted Corporation 1 and took overall charge of the management and execution of research expenses, the purpose of the research expenses is specified so that the research expenses can be used for biotechnology research. However, while Nonindicted Corporation 1 received research expenses from the said accounts from Nonindicted Corporation 1 to the accounts in the name of Nonindicted Party 2, etc. for the purpose of purchasing experimental cattle, etc., and kept them for business purposes, the Defendant withdrawn cash from the said accounts from March 14, 201 to September 1 of the same year and deposited them in the name deposit account in the name of Nonindicted Party 3 for each of the following occasions on a total of 13 times by withdrawing and consuming KRW 475 million,500,000,000 from the said accounts on July 16, 2004 and paid KRW 150,7800,000 for marriage of Nonindicted Corporation 1.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on this part of the charges on the ground of its reasoning, including the following reasons: (a) Nonindicted Corporation 1 is a public interest corporation prescribed by the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Public Interest Corporations and, in principle, subject to the resolution of the board of directors regarding the acquisition of its property; (b) although the research expenses of this case did not have been acquired at a cost from the funding institutions such as the affiliates of Nonindicted Company 5 (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company 5”) and did not go through the resolution of the board of directors; and (c) since the transfer of possession has changed in principle, the research expenses of this case constitutes another’s property belonging to Nonindicted Corporation 1; and (b) the Defendant is in the position of custodian in embezzlement, such as managing and keeping the research expenses, and bears the duty to use them for research purposes as a person in charge of research of Nonindicted Corporation 1, which has the substance as an organization, even if Nonindicted Corporation 1 did not actually exercise supervision over the use of the Defendant’s research expenses.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, for the joint development of new technology and products in biotechnology between the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 5 affiliates, the non-indicted 5 affiliate company paid a total of 7.5 billion won to non-indicted 1 corporation for research and development expenses for five years, and concluded a joint research and development project agreement with the non-indicted 5 affiliate company. Accordingly, it can be known that the non-indicted 1 received the research funds of this case from the non-indicted 5 affiliate company. Accordingly, the research funds received from the non-indicted 5 affiliate company pursuant to the joint research and development project agreement, etc. are money and belongs to the non-indicted 1 corporation regardless of the substantive legal effect of the above project agreement. However, in light of the contents of the joint research and development project agreement, etc. between the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 5 affiliate company, it is reasonable for the court below to conclude that the research funds of this case from the non-indicted 5 affiliate company did not constitute the acquisition for consideration, but it is justified in the judgment below.

Furthermore, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court of first instance, it is just that the court below determined that the defendant was in the position of keeping the research funds in business based on the consignment relation with the non-indicted corporation 1. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to dismissal of prosecution, the scope of Amendments to Bill of Indictment and the principle of no accusation, the legal interests protected by the crime of embezzlement, identity of property and belonging of property to another person and public-service corporation, the trust custody relationship, and consent for voluntary use, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or admitting facts contrary to logical and empirical rules and the principle of free evaluation

B. As to the fraudulentation of research funds by Nonindicted Corporation 1

Fraud is a crime established by deceiving another person and acquiring property or pecuniary gain based on the defective intent arising from deception. The essence of fraud is the acquisition of property or pecuniary gain by deception (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828, Apr. 9, 2004, etc.). Meanwhile, in the case of the co-offender relationship in which more than two persons conspired to commit a crime, a conspiracy does not require any legal fixed penalty, and there is an implied communication between the accomplices with respect to the joint performance of the crime directly or indirectly (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do868, Jun. 28, 2002; 2005Do2014, Sept. 9, 2005, etc.).

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that, in collusion with Co-Defendant 2 of the first instance trial around October 2000, the defendant ordered Co-Defendant 2 of the first instance trial to "be provided with operating funds by treating expenses as if he purchases experimental materials or equipment, such as personnel expenses and travel expenses of the researchers," and Co-Defendant 2 of the first instance trial submitted a false tax invoice, transaction statement, etc. as if he purchased experimental equipment at the request of the client, and submitted it to Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1 to the same company, and then, he received the money from Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1 in exchange for the remittance of the money from the customer, and then acquired KRW 50,000,000 from Nonindicted Co-Defendant 1 by means of receiving the money again from the customer.

In light of the first instance court's statement and prosecutor's statement of Co-Defendant 2 in the first instance trial and its ruling, the court below affirmed the first instance court's judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the charges on the premise that the Defendant's position and role as the defendant as the highest person in charge of the research team, the command and supervision relationship with Co-Defendant 2, and the use of the money received from Non-Party 1, etc. was recognized as a functional control through essential contribution to the crime by operating or promoting the whole core progress of the crime, etc. Furthermore, the court below affirmed the first instance court's judgment that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the premise that the causal relationship between the Defendant's act by fraud and the Defendant's act and the payment of research funds by Non-Party 1 is recognized.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the criminal intent of fraud and intent to acquire unlawful acquisition, the legal doctrine on the method and degree of proof of conspiracy of co-principals, and the causal relationship between deception and the disposal of property in fraud, or by erroneously recognizing facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

C. As to the fraud of government research funds

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that ○ University, ○ University, △△△△△ Research Institute in charge of managing and executing government research funds by preparing a false tax invoice as if the Defendant purchased pigs for experimenting, and submitting it as evidentiary data, and receiving research funds from 5 times from November 12, 2004 to May 26, 2005, 19,260,000 won in total.

The lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the charges, on the following grounds: (a) comprehensively taking account of the process and form of the conclusion of the government research service contract in which the Defendant participated; (b) the application procedure for payment of research funds; (c) the details of necessary evidential documents; (d) restrictions on the use of research funds and the treatment procedures for remaining research funds; and (e) the means and methods of deception used by the Defendant for the receipt of research funds; and (e) the Defendant’s deception of the △△△△△△△ Research Institute, a research funds executive organ

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of unlawful acquisition of fraud, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

D. As to the violation of the former Bioethics and Safety Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11250, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “Bioethics Act”).

In order to ensure bioethics and safety in biotechnology to prevent infringement of human dignity and worth or harm to human body, the Bioethics Act provides that “no person shall provide or use sperm or ova on condition of any money, property interest, or other consideration, or induce or mediate the provision or use of ovum or ovum (Article 13(3)).” In violation of Article 13(3), the Bioethics Act provides that a person who provides or uses ovum or ovum shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years on condition of money, property interest, or other consideration (Article 51(1)5).

In light of the aforementioned purpose and content of the provisions of the Bioethics Act, the act of using ovum “as a condition to benefit from property or any other consideration” under the aforementioned provision includes not only providing active benefits, such as transfer of goods or rights in return for providing ovum, but also providing passive benefits, such as exemption from liability. Meanwhile, the aforementioned provision prohibiting and punishing the transaction of ovum for consideration is equally applied not only to the case of using ovum for producing artificial insemination embryos, but also to the case of using ovum for producing somatic-cell cloning embryos.

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the defendant, in collusion with Co-Defendant 6 of the first instance trial from January 25, 2005 to August 17, 2005, received an ovum remaining after being used for artificial insemination treatment under the condition that the defendant reduces the sum of KRW 37,915,00,00, such as expenses for artificial insemination treatment and injection expenses, from 25 pregnant women who have caused artificial insemination treatment to the mountain father and hospital operated by Co-Defendant 6 of the first instance trial from 25 to 37,915,00.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the charges, on the ground that the Defendant’s use of ovum for the research on somatic cell embryonic stem cell is an act of using ovum “as a condition of property interest or other consideration” prohibited under Article 13(3) of the Bioethics Act, and that it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had made a great effort to verify the illegality of the aforementioned act.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the applicable provisions of the relevant crime, the constituent elements, criminal intent, and possibility of criticism, or by violating the constitutional principles on the interpretation and application of law, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the background and time of donation of ovum, thereby violating the logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to active or passive act that extensively lacks the fiduciary duty and good faith to each other in property transaction. It does not necessarily mean an important part of a juristic act. However, it should be based on the facts of a judgment to allow an actor to perform a disposition of property which the other party wishes by omitting the other party in error. Whether an act constitutes deception which a certain act causes a mistake in another person should be determined generally and objectively by taking into account the situation of transaction, other party’s knowledge, experience, occupation, and other specific circumstances at the time of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1991, Oct. 25, 2007). Of this, deception by passive act refers to a person subject to legal duty fails to notify the other party of the fact even though the other party was aware of a certain fact, and if it is evident that the other party did not perform the juristic act in question, the other party’s legal obligation to notify such fact in light of the good faith principle or to realize legal relations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20065Do194.

B. The gist of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant fabricated the content of the paper published in the 2004 204 Gaogle on the embryonic embryonic stem cell research (hereinafter “2004 paper”) and the paper published in the 2005 Gaogle (hereinafter “2005 paper”); (b) distorted the Defendant’s research results and the possibility of commercialization of stem cells through the press interview, etc.; and (c) made Nonindicted Co. 5 falsified the content of the paper in 2005 as if the content of the paper in 2005 is true and true and the possibility of commercialization of stem cells is high; and (d) had Nonindicted Co. 5 donated KRW 1 billion of research support funds for Defendant on September 28, 2005 to the ▽▽▽ Foundation by deceiving the Defendant’s research support funds by concealing the manipulation of the above paper by the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation; and (e) obtained the consent of Defendant 100 billion won to the research support foundation on September 1, 2000.

C. (1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the following facts are revealed.

(A) The Defendant published and published a thesis in 2004 with the content that the Defendant first established an embryonic stem cell reproduction by means of nuclear transplantation (NT-1’s name written in the paper) in the world in the scientific research area of the United States. In this paper, the Defendant’s research team compared and analyzed the genetic identity of a somatic cell and the genes extracted from the stem cell (an examination to verify whether the stem cell’s genes and the genes extracted from the stem cell are established by the somatic cell provider), the embryo formation test (one of the tests to confirm the decentralization ability of the stem cell), theme formation test (one of the tests to observe whether the stem cell’s stem cell’s decentralization ability is formed by inserting the stem cell’s decentralization ability to experiment), and whether the gene reaction of the somatic cell was established by analyzing whether the gene reaction of the embryonic stem cell was formed by the embryonic stem cell system or whether the gene reaction of the embryonic stem cell was established by identifying whether the embryonic stem cell was formed in the embryonic reaction or not.

(B) It is true that the Defendant’s research team attempted to produce somatic-cell cloning through a self-nuclear transplantation and established a stem cell line in the process, and conducted the aforementioned various tests. However, the analysis of the gene fingerprint conducted by the Defendant’s research team is that: (i) the first instance court co-defendant 5, the researcher in charge of the research team, applied for an examination by creating only the blood genes of a person thought to be a somatic cell provider without securing samples of stem cell genes and making a request for an examination; and (ii) in the case of the organ formation test, it cannot be deemed a proper examination to confirm whether the stem cell line is established by the organ reproduction method; and (iii) in the case of the organ formation test, it was published in the paper as if the △△△ research team established and retained by the artificial embryonic stem cell, etc. by the Defendant research team, instead of the stem cell of the thesis in 2004 paper, and (iii) whether the 2004 stem cell line is a normal stem cell organ reproduction or a woman’s organ reproduction is still controversial in the academic and female.

(C) However, the Defendant did not know that Co-Defendant 5’s operation of the gene text analysis and examination as above, and (2) submitted the paper in 2004 to the Tyna site, and conducted an examination of the formation of the tetoma on the stem cell line (NT-1) of the above paper in addition to the tetoma formation test published in the paper, and obtained the result of the test that the tetoma was formed before the final publication of the paper.

(D) In 2004, the Defendant published and published a paper in 2005 that 11 of the so-called patient-specific somatic cell reproduced embryonic stem cell line (the name inserted in the paper is NT-2 or 12) was established by means of global nuclear transplantation in the 2004, with the content that the research team established 11 embryonic stem cell lines (the name inserted in the paper) in the 2005 paper. This paper contains the following: (a) the Defendant’s research team conducted an analysis of genetic fingerprints, an embryo formation test, an embryotoma formation test, an embryo-type formation test, an immunopathy test, an embryo-type test (the confirmation of the existence of chronological abnormal in stem cell), an immunosis test (the examination to extract each gene from somatic cells and stem cells, and to verify whether to refuse immunity from stem cell transplantation), and at the same time, the Defendant used a total of 185 ovum for the establishment of embryonic stem cell, without using animal cells in the entire process.

(E) However, 9 of the 11 stem cell line published in the thesis in 2005 (NT-2 through 8, 10, 11) takes place by Co-defendant 5 of the first instance trial as if it was established by the so-called co-defendant 5 transferred artificial insemination stem cells brought by the research institute to the Defendant at the time of the cultivation of the research team, and the remaining two (NT-9, 12) were published in the paper without being established by the Defendant’s stem cell line. In addition, there was no normal establishment of the patient-specific stem cell line published in the thesis in 2005. In addition, in the case of the 2005 thesis, the 2-year gene stem cell cells was created in the process of the 205 thesis, and the 5-year gene stem cell cells was created in the process of the 2005 thesis, and the 5-year gene stem cell sample and the 5-year gene stem cell sample were not published by the prosecutor.

(F) However, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that Co-Defendant 5 of the first instance trial fabricated the results of the experiment as if it was combined with the foregoing nine stem cell lines, and the Defendant was aware that two stem cell lines (NT-2 and 3) were normally conducted, and that the examination of genetic fingerprint analysis and immunity was conducted. Also, the Defendant is not a prosecutor to verify whether the somatic cell reproduction was made in the process of establishing the stem cell line by comparing and analyzing the identity of the somatic cell and the stem cell lines.

(G) After the publication of the thesis in 2005, the non-indicted 5 Group 6, the president of the non-indicted 5 Group promised to support the defendant to continue the stem cell research at the level of social refund of the profits of the company around July 2005. Accordingly, the president of the non-indicted 5 Technical Director non-indicted 7 found the defendant as the defendant's laboratory around that time, and discussed support for the defendant's research support. Based on this, the non-indicted 5 provided a stable research environment to enable the defendant to concentrate on the leading research in the stem cell field so that the defendant can play a role in research and free international activities. Based on this, the non-indicted 5 provided the defendant with a stable research environment to contribute a total of KRW 3 billion every three years to the ▽▽▽▽▽▽△ Foundation that manages the defendant's supporters' association. On September 1, 2005, the non-indicted 5 concluded the research support agreement with the defendant and the ▽▽▽ Foundation, and accordingly, paid KRW 100 billion to the Foundation of the same month.

(h) In July 2005, Non-Indicted 9, the president of Non-Indicted 8 Co. 1, 2005, found the Defendant’s laboratory and expressed his intent to support the Defendant’s research funds, and subsequently proposed the NAF to support the Defendant’s research funds. Accordingly, the NAF decided to support the Defendant with KRW 1 billion with the Livestock Industry Development Support Fund, and paid KRW 1 billion to the ▽▽▽▽▽▽ Foundation on September 1, 2005. In this process, the Defendant did not express any special opinion or request to the NAF.

(2) Based on the above facts, the lower court determined that, even if the Defendant involved in the manipulation of data in a certain verification test, it is difficult to view the Defendant’s partial manipulation of the contents of the thesis, or the Defendant’s media interview or lectures itself as a deception for the purpose of deception for research fraud, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the stem cell line (NT-1) of the paper was normally established in 2004 as a nuclear stem cell line; and (b) at least part (NT-2, 3) of the stem cell line of the paper of 2005 paper was a patient-specific stem cell line of the patient-specific stem cell line of the stem cell line of the paper of 205 paper; and (c) together with the background leading up to Non-Party 5, etc.’s research subsidization; and (d) the Defendant’s media interview or lectures.

Then, the lower court determined that Nonindicted Co. 5 could not be considered as actively deceiving Nonindicted Co. 5 in the process of concluding a research subsidization agreement, on the ground that it merely mentions the possibility of carrying out the business with Nonindicted Co. 5, and it did not agree to give any consideration to the support of research funds, even though the Defendant told Nonindicted Co. 7, etc. that “the stem cell would not be given more favorable opportunity for Nonindicted Co. 5 when it is commercialized” in the course of the discussion of research funds to the effect that “the stem cell would not be given more favorable opportunity for Nonindicted Co. 5 when it is commercialized.”

In addition, the lower court presumed that, with respect to the act of receiving research funds in relation to the research outcomes from the manipulation of the thesis, if the Defendant knew that there was the manipulation of the thesis, taking into comprehensive account the details and the intent of the manipulation in the thesis, and the motive and specific purpose of the subsidization of research funds, if it is evident that there was the actual research outcomes, it may be evaluated that there was deception of fraud only if it is evident that the research outcomes did not provide support for research funds. However, the lower court determined that: ① Nonindicted Co. 5’s fundamental motive behind Nonindicted Co. 5’s subsidization of research funds to the Defendant as part of the social exchange of corporate profits increases the possibility of commercialization of the Defendant’s establishment of an embryonic stem cell reproduction embryonic stem cell and a customized embryonic stem cell line for patients for the first time; ② some verified experimental data cannot be seen as essential matters to determine whether to conclude a research subsidization agreement; ② the Defendant did not have any duty to notify the Defendant of the research funds based on his belief that Nonindicted Co. 5 had been achieved due to non-indicted Co. 5’s 1’s em and did not have been aware of the research funds.

Meanwhile, the lower court determined that, in light of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have a duty to notify the NA of the manipulation of the thesis to the NAF, and it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant had a criminal intent to acquire research funds by fraud, based on the following: (a) the NAF first expressed its intent to support the research fund, and determined the amount, use, etc. of the support fund, and the purpose of the support fund is the livestock research support fund that is not directly related to stem cells.

D. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant of each of the charges in this part, on the ground that the defendant's act does not constitute a deception through active deception or omission in fraud, and it cannot be deemed that there was an intentional intent to deceive the defendant by deceiving Nonindicted Co. 5 or the NACF and deceiving the defendant

Although examining the possibility of commercialization of stem cells claimed by the prosecutor, comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned circumstances such as the number of ovums used or the degree of errors in the paper in 2005 concerning nutrition cells used for the development of stem cells and the motive and purpose of supporting research funds for the Defendant of Nonindicted Co. 5 and the NACF, the Defendant’s act constitutes deception for the acquisition of research funds, or the Defendant cannot be said to have the intent of deception as above.

This part of the judgment below is justified, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles regarding fraud, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)