All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal filed by the Defendants).

1. Examining the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and B in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in the instant case that the Defendants committed the crime of forging securities, the fact that the Defendants committed the exercise of securities, the fact that the forgery was false, and the fact that the original description of the deed was false, did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of forging securities or by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience, contrary

2. Examining the reasoning of Defendant C’s appeal in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court found Defendant C guilty of all the facts charged of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence by misapprehending the rules of evidence

subsection (b) of this section.

Meanwhile, the argument that there was an error in the application of the statutes regarding the act of aiding each private document among the facts charged in the instant case is alleged by Defendant C as the ground for appeal or by the lower court’s ex officio determination, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal.

3. As to the reasons for the prosecutor's appeal, the court below reversed the judgment of the first instance court which found Defendant A and B guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (affording) and acquitted Defendant A of the charge of occupational breach of trust, which is related to the crime, and acquitted Defendant A of the charges. Further, as to the fact that each of the above private documents was committed against Defendant A, the exercise of each of the above private documents, the fact that each of the above private documents was falsified, the fact that each of the above private documents related to the A-registration ledger