According to the records, Defendant D and K appealed appealed on the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In this case, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles, incomplete deliberation, or mistake of facts cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, under 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 has been imposed, a final appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, the determination of the sentence is unfair in this case where Defendant D or K was sentenced

The argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of sentencing hearing or sentencing judgment, or in the incomplete hearing cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. We examine Defendant E and Defendant L’s grounds of appeal.

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below was just in finding Defendant E guilty of the facts charged. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on “for profit-making purpose” in the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax Invoice) by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

In addition, under 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 has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant L corporation, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not

3. We examine Defendant G and Defendant N’s appeal.