1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B and C, the lower court convicted Defendant B and C of the facts charged on the grounds as 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 inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the intent of deception and deception in fraud, the duty to clarify the terms and conditions, and the incorporation into an insurance contract

2. As to the Defendant D’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant D of the facts charged on the grounds as 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 inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent and disposal of deception and deception in fraud, the duty to clarify the terms and conditions, the entry into an insurance contract, the time when the insurance contract was

According 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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

Defendant

In this case where a minor sentence is imposed against D, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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