All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant R’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court, based on its reasoning, was justifiable to have determined that the Defendant R was guilty of the violation of the Act on the AG-related Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the fraud related to the AZ related to the victim.

In contrast to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by 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 fraud, by misapprehending the principle of trial on evidence, or by infringing the right to

In addition, pursuant to Article 383, Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on Defendant R, the argument that the punishment is unfair because it is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning for Defendant A’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant A guilty of violating the Victim M-related Fraud among the instant facts charged against Defendant A and the Act on the Control of Illegal Check-Related Crimes 2 through 5, 8, and 8, based on the reasons indicated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the right to supplement blank checks and joint principals.

On the other hand, Defendant A's assertion that prior to the victim's transfer of shares constitutes an attempted fraud because it did not cause monetary damage to the third party in relation to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud).