1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant D’s ground of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the lower court convicted Defendant D of the charge of murder preparation, which is an ancillary charge added by the lower court, based on its stated reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending

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 labor for more 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 on Defendant D, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a

2. As to Defendant E’s grounds of appeal, the argument that the lower court erred by exceeding the limit of sentencing discretion and thereby violating Article 51 of the Criminal Act constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

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 on Defendant E, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not

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