1. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant H Co., Ltd. in light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the charges in this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the completion of statute of limitations, contrary to what is alleged in

In addition, the argument that the lower court’s judgment on sentencing erred by taking into account the circumstances such as violating the principle of res judicata and presumption of innocence constitutes the argument 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 fine is imposed against the above defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the remaining Defendants, the lower court went beyond the inherent limits of sentencing discretion in violation of the principle of balanced criminal punishment and the principle of accountability.

The assertion that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of examining and determining sentencing, mistake of facts as to the premise of sentencing, and incomplete hearing of sentencing conditions is ultimately 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 fine is imposed against the Defendants, the argument that the sentencing of a sentence is unreasonable

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