1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, there is an error of misapprehension of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles in determining the sentencing of the court below.

The argument that there is an error in violation of the sentencing guidelines is ultimately attributable to the argument of unfair sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing may only be filed in cases where a death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been sentenced by the original court. Thus, an appeal by the Supreme Court is not allowed on the grounds that the amount of the above defendant's

2. On the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant A of the instant facts charged, on the ground that there was no proof of the relevant crime, on the following grounds: (a) the use and medication of philophones on May 23, 2012; (b) the delivery of philophones on July 8, 2012; and (c) the delivery of philophones on May 23, 2012 to Defendant B; and (b) the receipt of philophones on July 8, 2012.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors of misapprehending the rules of logic and experience to recognize facts.

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