All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted Defendant A of the fraud caused by the receipt of investment funds from the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In doing so, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on modification of indictments, etc.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted as to Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted Defendant C of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine without exhausting all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the Defendant D’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted Defendant D of the instant facts charged (excluding the portion of innocence) on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In doing so, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders, the rules of reinforcement of confessions, mistake of law, coercion of law, and legitimate acts.

4. As to the Defendants’ wrongful assertion of sentencing, the argument that the lower court erred by failing to deliberate on the sentencing conditions constitutes an unfair argument of sentencing.

In this regard, according to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, death penalty, life imprisonment, or ten years.