All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court, among the facts charged in the instant case, found Defendant A guilty of fraud of KRW 30 million investment and KRW 20 million as to Defendant B.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or of misunderstanding the legal principles on fraud.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is 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 minor sentence was rendered, Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing that the lower judgment erred by exceeding the limit of discretion in sentencing does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. The Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal are examined as follows: (a) according to the evidence submitted by the lower court, the Defendants could fully recognize the fact that the Defendants participated in each of the crimes listed in the facts charged of this case; (b) however, the lower court acquitted Defendant A on the charge of fraud of KRW 20 million and KRW 30 million investment in Defendant B; and (c) thereby, acquitted Defendant B of each of them.

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence, which are the premise thereof, belong to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it exceeds the limit of the free evaluation of evidence

The judgment below

In light of the records, the court below did not recognize the defendants' participation in the conspiracy as above to the extent that it goes beyond the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to joint principal offenders.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.