1. According to the record on the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal, Defendant A appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and only asserted the illegality of sentencing on the grounds of the appeal.

In such a case, the allegation that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Meanwhile, examining the various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant A’s age, sexual conduct, intelligence and environment, victims’ relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, which are recognized by records and evidence, even if considering the circumstances asserted by Defendant A and defense counsel, the sentencing of the lower court that sentenced Defendant A 14 years to imprisonment is too unreasonable.

2. Although examining the grounds for Defendant C’s appeal in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on brokerage under the Act on the Authorized Brokerage Agency and the mistake of law under Article 16 of the Criminal Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds 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.