All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged and upheld the first instance judgment that collected KRW 1,475,150,00 from Defendant A, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the specific amount of the surcharge, the subject of additional collection, and the method of calculating the amount of additional collection

2. As to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, Defendant B’s sentence is more severe, and limiting cases where Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act can be deemed as grounds of appeal of unfair sentencing is contrary to the constitutional provisions that stipulate the right of the people to be tried by the Supreme Court, and is also contrary to the principle of equality.

However, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 101(2) of the Constitution or the constitutional provision that limits the right of citizens to a trial by the Supreme Court or an unconstitutional provision contrary to the equality principle.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Therefore, Defendant B’s aforementioned assertion is nothing more than the purport that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant B, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

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