All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements of grounds of appeal and defense counsel's arguments in each of the supplemental statements of grounds of appeal, which are not timely filed).

1. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the first instance court on the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal, the court below is justified in finding Defendant A guilty on the following grounds: (a) the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery of False Account Statement, etc.) among each of the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A (excluding the part on

In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the legal nature of a company-only card purchase under the instant franchise agreement, deception, disposal act, intent of deception, fraud, conspiracy, violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as issuance of false tax invoices), the subject of punishment for submitting a list of tax invoices, reinforcement evidence, and disposal form, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the grounds of Defendant B’s appeal, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that all of the facts charged in this case against Defendant B was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding processing transactions and the determination of the credibility of statements, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding intentional intent in fraud, or by violating the principle of in

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in misunderstanding facts in the sentencing hearing is ultimately an unfair argument in sentencing.

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