The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, it is justifiable for the lower court to have convicted the Defendants of all the charges of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In addition, there is no error of exceeding the bounds of free evaluation due to violating logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on a violation of substantial psychological principle and door-to-door sales under Article 58 (1) 1 of the Door-to-Door Sales Act without making any necessary deliberation as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case, since the case differs from the instant case.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the method of sentencing hearing and sentencing judgment is ultimately unfair.

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

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