All appeals are dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The allegation in the grounds of appeal as to the evasion of compulsory execution by the Defendants is with the purport that Defendant B did not bear the obligation against D, and that the Defendants conspired to evade the obligation against D and did not complete the ownership transfer registration as to the instant automobile, but the lower court convicted the Defendants by conducting erroneous fact-finding, and that Defendant B did not commit any crime as described in this part of the facts charged, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the Defendants by misapprehending the legal principles as to intimidation, even though Defendant B did not have committed any false fact-finding or intimidation as stated in this part of the facts charged.
However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise thereof are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it exceeds the limit of the free evaluation of evidence.
The judgment below
Although examining the reasons in light of the record, the court below cannot find out the reasons that the court below exceeded the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and there is no illegality in the misapprehension of legal principles as to intimidation.
In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years
In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against A, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.