All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below as to Defendant A’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below and the first instance court, the court below was just in finding Defendant A guilty of both the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (in the indictment of this case), the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (in the indictment of this case), the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (in the indictment of this case), the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (in the indictment of this case), the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (in the indictment of this case), and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Occupational

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a minor sentence is imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below as to Defendant B’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below and the first instance court, the court below was just in finding Defendant B guilty of both the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (in the indictment of this case against Defendant B), each of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the victim BW and AR, and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and the violation of the above Act, and the use of the private document as the above investigation document. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not exhaust all necessary deliberations and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the