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 duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the grounds of appeal by Defendant AO, the lower court’s determination that Defendant AO was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal doctrine on fraud, causation between deception and dispositive act, and the defrauded, or in violation of the provisions of the Act on the Preparation of Protocol of Examination

2. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the first instance court on the grounds of appeal by Defendant AP, the court below is justified in finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged against Defendant AP on the grounds as stated in its holding.

In doing so, there is no violation of law by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the intent of acquisition.

3. 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’s determination that Defendant A was guilty of the fraud part of the facts charged against Defendant A on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or misapprehending the legal principles on the deception of fraud.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Therefore, a more minor sentence is imposed against Defendant A.