All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant A and B’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, found Defendant A guilty of all of the facts charged in the modified case against Defendant A, including the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (excluding the part of innocence) and the modified facts charged against Defendant B (excluding the part of

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the facts beyond the bounds of the free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles

In addition, the argument that the lower judgment erred by exceeding the limit of sentencing discretion is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing shall be allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years

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

2. As to Defendant C’s appeal, the Defendant did not submit a statement of the grounds for appeal within the statutory period, and the petition of appeal does not indicate the grounds for appeal.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant D’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the modified facts charged (excluding the part not guilty) against the Defendant was guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

4. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant CW, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and the grounds of appeal are unreasonable.