All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged, 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 exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders

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

However, under 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 not less 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 against Defendant A, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not

2. As to the Defendant C’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant C of the facts charged (excluding the part of not guilty of orders and dismissing prosecution) 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 exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the criminal intent of deception and deception in fraud.

In addition, considering the age and happiness environment of Defendant C, the specific contents of each of the crimes in this case, the method and method thereof, the period of the crime, the amount of damage, the possibility of recovery of damage, and the circumstances before and after the crime, the sentencing of the court below that sentenced Defendant C 15 years imprisonment with prison labor cannot be deemed to be extremely unfair even if all of the circumstances alleged in the ground of appeal are considered.

3. As to Defendant D’s ground of appeal