1. The lower court upheld the first instance judgment that found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged against Defendant A.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders.

The grounds of appeal by Defendant A, which did not specify the facts charged or the S’s statement is inadmissible, is not legitimate grounds of appeal, since the above Defendant’s ground of appeal or the lower court did not consider it as the subject of judgment ex officio, is asserted only in the grounds of appeal.

2. Defendant B maintained the judgment of the first instance court that found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged against Defendant B.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free conviction in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by violating the principle of court-oriented trials, contrary to what is alleged in the

According to Article 383 (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 is declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where the above defendant was sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. The Defendants’ final appeal is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.