In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of interference with business, fabrication of private documents, and uttering of private documents is not 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. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant B, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

Ultimately, Defendant B’s grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on Defendant C, E, and F’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the instant facts charged against Defendant C, E, and F was guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and by exceeding the bounds of the free evaluation

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