1. According to the records as to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, Defendant B appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles with the grounds of appeal, but withdrawal of all the remaining grounds of appeal except for the unfair sentencing on the first trial date of the lower court.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

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 this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant B, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the grounds of appeal by Defendant C and D in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted Defendant C and D of the instant facts charged, for the reasons indicated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, even after examining the records including the materials submitted by Defendant C and D by the public defender together with the statement of grounds for appeal, this case does not constitute “when there is any reason to request a retrial” under Article 383 subparag. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, the argument that Defendant C and D did not confirm their desire to participate in a participatory trial is legitimate as written in a document submitted after the deadline for submitting a statement of reasons for appeal.