1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, acquitted Defendant C, E, and D of the instant conjunctive charges on the ground that there was no proof of such crime. 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 the duty of care in the crime of injury caused by occupational negligence and the scope of an offender

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant A and B’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant A and B guilty of all of the ancillary facts charged. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged

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