1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, the allegation that the lower judgment erred by exceeding the sentencing criteria, misapprehending the legal doctrine on the amount of punishment, or omitting judgment on the circumstances favorable to the Defendant constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

However, examining various circumstances, such as the age of Defendant A, criminal records, sex, environment, relationship with the victim, motive and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, there are substantial grounds to recognize that the amount of punishment of the lower court, which maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced Defendant A 12 years to imprisonment, was extremely unfair even when taking into account the circumstances asserted by the defense counsel, is extremely unfair.

subsection (b) of this section.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of punishment and by failing to examine constitutes an unfair judgment for sentencing.

According to Article 383 (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 shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Defendant

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on B, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate appeal.

3. Review of the records on the grounds of Defendant E’s appeal reveals that Defendant E appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and only alleged unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the violation of the law is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below did not fully consider the normal reasons favorable to Defendant E is ultimately unfair in sentencing.

Accordingly, according to Article 383 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, death penalty, life imprisonment, or not less than ten years.