1. As to the grounds for Defendant B’s appeal, the argument that the lower court erred in the misapprehension of logical rules and mistake of facts by hearing the basic facts for sentencing and thereby, constitutes an unfair argument for sentencing.

Examining various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the determination of the lower court’s punishment, which maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced the Defendant to ten years’ imprisonment, is extremely unfair, even in light of the circumstances asserted by the Defendant and his defense counsel.

2. As to the grounds for Defendant D’s appeal, the argument that the lower court erred in the misapprehension of logical rules and mistake of facts by hearing the basic facts for sentencing and thereby, constitutes an unfair argument for sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against the defendant.

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