1. As to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, the argument of incomplete deliberation as to sentencing conditions is ultimately asserted in the grounds of appeal. According to 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 is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on the Defendant, the argument that the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable cannot

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to Defendant C’s grounds of appeal, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant C guilty of the instant charges on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules without exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

In addition, the argument of misunderstanding of facts as to sentencing conditions in the grounds of appeal is ultimately an argument of unfair sentencing. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the argument that the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

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