All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant A’s ground of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable in its determination that Defendant A was guilty of all of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), Fraud, Subsidy Management Act, and the Act on the Maintenance of Cultural Properties due to mutual lease by J, on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of unlawful acquisition, intentional causal relationship, and the violation of the Act on the Maintenance of Cultural Properties, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant B’s ground of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the lower court convicted Defendant B of violating the Act on the Maintenance, etc. of Cultural Heritage due to mutual lease by J among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant B is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant D’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that all of the charges of this case against Defendant D were guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the facts beyond the bounds