1. As to the Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged (excluding the part not guilty of the order) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

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

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B and C, the lower court convicted Defendant B and C of the facts charged against Defendant B and C (excluding the part not guilty of Defendant B’s order) on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on willful misconduct in aiding and abetting the sale of psychotropic drugs, or by violating

Defendant

B and C also asserted to the effect that the lower judgment erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on vessel investigation, but this is only asserted by Defendant B and C as the grounds for appeal or by the lower court’s ex officio decision in the final appeal, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

Furthermore, even if examining the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the investigation of naval vessels in its judgment.

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