All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant A, B, etc. on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the fraud committed by Defendant A, etc. among the modified facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A and B, based on its stated reasoning.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the joint principal offender and the criminal intent of deception in fraud

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed the entire judgment of the court below, but there is no evidence of objection to the remainder of the grounds of appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of Defendant E’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 E was guilty of the facts charged (excluding the part not guilty of the disposition and the part not guilty of the grounds for appeal) on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to joint principal offenders in violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous against the principle of balance of punishment, the principle of responsibility, and the principle of equality, constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

Accordingly, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, a final appeal is allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where Defendant E was sentenced to more minor punishment, the amount of punishment is determined.