All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Examining the evidence of Defendant A’s grounds of appeal duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that all of the instant facts charged against Defendant A (excluding the part determined as not guilty in the original trial) was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In doing so, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on double indictment, number of crimes, and additional collection under Article 3(1)1 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (hereinafter “Regulation on Criminal Proceeds Concealment”).

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the examination of sentencing and the method of sentencing by infringing on the principle of balance of crime and the principle of responsibility.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only when a death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years

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

2. Examining the evidence of Defendant C’s grounds of appeal duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendant C was guilty of all the facts charged of the instant case (excluding the part determined as not guilty in the original trial) on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In doing so, it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or calculates the amount of accomplice and punishment, and criminal proceeds and additional collection.