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 reasoning of Defendant A’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that Defendant A was guilty of all of the charges of this case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the statutory principle of punishment, the rule of exclusion of illegally collected evidence, the rule of exclusion of evidence, the admissibility of expert evidence, the “act of having others gambled or engage in other speculative acts,” and Article 16 of the Criminal Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Meanwhile, in a written judgment, a judge’s signature and seal is affixed (Article 41 of the Criminal Procedure Act), but the signature and seal of the judge is not necessary to affix the signature and seal of the judge to the copy of the judgment served on the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do3060, Jun. 28, 2007). Therefore, the ground of appeal that there was an error of omission of a judge’s signature and seal on a different premise cannot be accepted.

In addition, the argument that there is an error of misunderstanding of legal principles as to collection is not a legitimate ground for appeal as a new argument which was filed in the statement of reason for appeal which was not timely filed.

2. Examining the reasoning of Defendant B’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that Defendant B was guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.