1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendant B of the facts charged against Defendant B, 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 regarding the principal offender’s intent in changes in indictment, scope of trial, and aiding and abetting

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant C, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendant C of aiding and abetting the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act as stated in the first instance judgment (2) No. 10 per annum among the facts charged against Defendant C, 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 against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, 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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

Defendant

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against C, the argument that the amount of punishment is 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.