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 the instant facts charged (excluding the part not guilty in the grounds for appeal).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and 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 regarding “related to the sale and purchase and other transaction of financial investment instruments” under Article 178(1)1 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”), “act of using unlawful means, plans, or tricks”; “the purpose of trading or other transaction of financial investment instruments” under Article 178(2) of the Capital Markets Act; “the use of deceptive scheme” and “the use of deceptive scheme,” etc.

In sentencing, judges shall respect the sentencing criteria of the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court in sentencing, and the court shall, unless it judges under the summary proceedings or the summary proceedings of the summary proceedings, enter the reasons for sentencing in the judgment, in cases where it is necessary to enter the reasons for sentencing in the judgment as a result of a judgment deviating from the sentencing criteria, in consideration of the significance, effects, etc. of the sentencing criteria, and enter the reasons in a way that

[See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7410, 2010Do444 (combined) Decided December 9, 2010] Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the lower court stated the grounds for sentencing in the written judgment in a way that expresses the grounds for such sentencing against Defendant A in a reasonable and persuasive manner. Therefore, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s allegation that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the method of sentencing that should be observed by judges in sentencing exceeding the sentencing guidelines and violated Article 81-7(2) of the Court Organization Act is not acceptable.

2. Defendant B’s ground of appeal