All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant B and I’s grounds for appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination that Defendant B and I guilty all of the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning is justifiable.

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 against logical and empirical rules.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant F’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the instant facts charged against Defendant F is guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

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 relevant legal principles, such as “for-profit purposes” in the crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a minor sentence is imposed against Defendant F, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant C’s grounds for appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant C guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Delivery, etc. of False Tax Invoice) among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant C on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

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 in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principals.

b) the Commission;