All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal not timely filed).

1. The grounds for Defendant A’s appeal should be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and the probative value of evidence based on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). The lower court, on the grounds the reasons indicated in its reasoning, recognized the first instance judgment that found Defendant A guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and rejected the allegation of the grounds for appeal as to mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine of the above Defendant.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the recognition of facts that form the basis of such judgment of the court below. It is nothing more than denying the judgment of the court below on the selection and probative value of evidence belonging to the free judgment of the court of fact-finding. In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the relevant legal principles of the court below, and the evidence duly admitted, the judgment of the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the intent to acquire fraud, the amount of fraud, the number of crimes, and the proof of facts based on indirect evidence, or by exceeding the bounds of

The Supreme Court precedents cited on the grounds of appeal are different from the instant case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case.

2. On the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the lower court, based on the reasons indicated in its reasoning, did not err by misapprehending the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and by exceeding the bounds of the functional control of golf membership purchase price by jointly processing with Defendant A.