1. According to the records as to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, 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 judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the exclusion of judgment or the proviso of Article 70 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, the proviso of Article 98 (2) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and the completion of the statute of limitations cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the allegation that the lower court erred by infringing on the fundamental contents of the principle of balanced criminal punishment or the principle of accountability constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, 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 ground 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 is not legitimate

3. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the grounds of appeal by Defendant C corporation, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. As such, in this case where Defendant C corporation was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the sentencing of punishment

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