1. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant J in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant J guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. Contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the solicitation

Meanwhile, the argument that the lower court erred in incomplete deliberation on the grounds for sentencing constitutes the 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 grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the punishment

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant R and T’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that all the charges of this case against Defendant R and T were guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on special measures for the control of health crimes

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