1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A and C, in a case where a fine is not paid, if the court ordering the custody of a workhouse, the amount of fine per day of detention shall be set and the period of detention shall be set at the discretion of the court within the limit under Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 70Do1813, Nov. 24, 1970). The lower court’s determination of the period of attracting the above Defendants within the scope of Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act is justifiable, and there is no error in matters of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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 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 the above Defendants, the argument that the sentencing of the sentence is unreasonable

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to Defendant D’s grounds of appeal, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant D guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the

In addition, as seen earlier, it is reasonable for the lower court to set the period of custody of Defendant D within the scope of Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act, as long as the court determines the period of custody of a fine. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Furthermore, as seen earlier, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, Defendant D is subject to appeal.