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. As to the Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment 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 on the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the establishment of fraud,

In addition, even in light of the records, the lower court did not err by infringing on the right to counsel or by violating Article 15(2) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law in the incomplete deliberation on basic facts for sentencing and misunderstanding of facts constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

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

Defendant

In this case where a minor sentence is imposed against A, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B and C, the lower court convicted Defendant B and C of the charges on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or violates the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes