The lower court upheld the first instance judgment that found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on deception and damage in fraud, the establishment of medical institutions by non-medical personnel, and the renunciation of public relations in the crime of violating the

The allegation that the lower court’s determination of sentencing infringed on the essential contents of the principle of balance of punishment or the principle of responsibility, and erred by exceeding the bounds of the discretion of sentencing or by erroneously applying the sentencing criteria against the principle of proportionality constitutes an unfair argument of sentencing.

According to Article 383 (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 is declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where the Defendants were sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the above assertion or punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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