1. As to the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant D on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the intimidation on December 5, 2017 among the facts charged against Defendant D.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of intimidation

The prosecutor shall not indicate in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief the grounds of objection as to the convicted part of the judgment of the court below as to the entire conviction part.

2. As to the Defendant C’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant C of the facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders

In addition, pursuant to 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 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 the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable cannot be

3. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B and J, an appeal may be filed on the grounds that the determination of punishment is extremely unfair, only for cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed.

Therefore, in this case where the defendants were sentenced to more minor punishment, the grounds for sentencing favorable to the judgment of the court below are not considered properly, or the principle of balanced punishment or the principle of accountability.