All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) among the facts charged against Defendant A.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the amount of property profit in fraud

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

Defendant

In this case where a minor sentence is imposed against A, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendant B of the facts charged on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules without exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mistake and causation in fraud, intent of deception, joint principal offender, and burden of proof in criminal trials.

3. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant C, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendant C of the facts charged, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent to assist and the method

4. Therefore, all appeals are to be filed.