1. While examining the grounds for appeal by Defendant A in accordance with the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the habitual or mental or physical weakness, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair in this case where a minor sentence is imposed against Defendant A does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Although examining the grounds for appeal by Defendant C in accordance with relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower judgment convicting Defendant C of the facts charged against the Defendant, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, did not err by misapprehending the facts contrary to logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the principle of trial on evidence and the intention of the teacher, or by

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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, in this case where Defendant C was sentenced to a minor punishment, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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