According to the records, Defendant E asserted only mental and physical disorder and unreasonable sentencing as the grounds for appeal, while appealed from the judgment of the first instance. The remaining Defendants asserted only unfair sentencing.

In such a case, the argument that the court below erred in the rules of evidence, mistake of facts, violation of laws and regulations, and misapprehension of legal principles cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, considering the circumstances that Defendant E caused the instant crime, such as the background leading up to the instant crime, the method of commission of the crime, the act of the Defendant before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to view that the said Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the instant crime, and therefore, there is no illegality of not recognizing

In addition, pursuant to 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 more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in each case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against the Defendants, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground

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