All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Defendants’ grounds for appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted Defendant A and C of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (afford) and the facts charged against Defendant B (excluding the portion not guilty of each of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal) on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In doing so, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on admissibility of recording files, joint principal offenders, elements for constituting a crime of breach of trust, calculation of gains under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the

Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 383 subparag. 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 Defendant B was sentenced to minor punishment, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, it is justifiable for the lower court to have acquitted Defendant A of the charge of giving rise to breach of trust among the facts charged against Defendant A, and of the charge of giving rise to breach of trust among the facts charged against Defendant C.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the elements of the crime of re-taking of breach of trust and the crime of taking property in breach of trust and the number of

On the other hand, the prosecutor appealed against the entire judgment of the court below against Defendant A and C, but the guilty part and the not guilty part of the grounds for appeal did not state legitimate grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal and are also reasons for appeal.