1. Although examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts contrary to logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the public offering, co-principal, and principle of direct examination, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. According to the records on Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, Defendant B appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the court below erred in the misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, 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.