1. As to the Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders

2. On the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (issuance of False Tax Invoice) among the facts charged against Defendant B.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the specification of facts charged

The argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the degree of Defendant B’s participation constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, 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 more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant B, the argument that punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal

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