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

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.

Furthermore, even if ex officio examination is conducted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of the law of evidence or logical and empirical rules.

In addition, the lower court violated the principle of accountability by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the sentencing conditions.

The argument that there is an error in violation of the principle of equality under the Constitution when considering the equality of sentencing against other accomplices is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.

However, according 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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing

Defendant

In this case where a minor sentence is imposed against A, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendant B of the facts charged on the grounds as stated 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 in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the “person administering another’s business” and the conspiracy or the establishment of

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