1. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only for those cases on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for more than ten years has been imposed. As such, in this case where Defendant A was sentenced to a minor punishment, the argument that the sentencing of the sentence

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that all of the charges of this case against Defendant B were guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. 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 “for-profit purpose” under Article 8-2(1) of the Act

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant B, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

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