All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have found Defendant A guilty of violating the Medical Service Act among the facts charged against Defendant A and violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) on the grounds stated in its reasoning. 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 in violation of logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below violated the principle of proportionality and the principle of responsibility is ultimately unfair in sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of punishment is unfair in this case where Defendant A was sentenced to minor punishment is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning for Defendant D’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable in finding Defendant D guilty of aiding and abetting a violation of the Medical Service Act among the ancillary facts charged against Defendant D and of aiding and abetting a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) 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 exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the relation between the establishment of aiding and abetting, substantial direct deliberation, violation of the National

In addition, the argument that the judgment below erred in violation of the principle of proportionality, the principle of responsibility, and the principle of the balance of crimes is unfair.