1. As to the Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendant A of the instant facts charged on the grounds as indicated 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 regarding “total amount of supply value, etc.” and the period of detention in the workhouse, or by omitting necessary judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The issue of adopting the application for examination of evidence may not be examined when the court deems it unnecessary at the discretion of the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do7947, Jan. 27, 2011). Thus, even if the court below rejected Defendant A’s application for witness, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act as 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

Defendant

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on B, 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.