All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of fraud among the facts charged against Defendant A, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, 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 establishment of fraud.

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. According to the record as to Defendant F and G’s appeal, Defendant F and G did not submit a petition of appeal to the lower court. Defendant F and G’s state appointed defense counsel submitted a written statement of “statement of grounds for appeal” to the Supreme Court on March 19, 2019 when the period for filing an appeal expires.

Even if the appeal is filed, the appeal by a public defender is unlawful as it is filed after the right to appeal is extinguished.

3. On the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted Defendant A on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the organization of a criminal organization, activities of a criminal organization, activities of a criminal organization among the facts charged against Defendant A, Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J, and the joining of a criminal organization.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “organizations aiming at committing crimes” under Article 114

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.