1. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. As such, in this case where Defendant B’s minor punishment was imposed, the argument that the sentencing of punishment is unreasonable

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant C’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant C guilty of violating the Food Sanitation Act among the modified facts charged against Defendant C on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, 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

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant C, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable cannot be

3. According to the records on Defendant G’s grounds of appeal, Defendant G asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal, while appealed against the judgment of the first instance court.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles on the grounds for sentencing is ultimately unfair.