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 grounds for Defendant A’s appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the following facts: (a) the intent of “the fraud by May 17, 2014” in the first instance trial 2017 Gohap 137 case among the facts charged against Defendant A; and (b) “the fraud by the end of March 2015, 2015” in the first instance trial 2017 Godan232 case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

In addition, according to Article 383 (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, a final appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Defendant

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against A, the argument that the Defendant was the prior wife is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the grounds for Defendant B’s appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the fraud of the instant case in the first instance trial 2017 High Order 1129, among the facts charged against Defendant B.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, omitting judgment, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

In light of the record, the prosecutor did not prosecute multiple criminal acts of Defendant B in a lump sum and tried to separate them over several times according to the progress of the investigation.

On the other hand, the prosecutor's filing of a public prosecution is not deemed to have significantly exceeded the discretionary power of prosecution. Thus, the grounds of appeal pointing this out cannot be accepted, and the first instance court and the lower court.