1. As to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, the lower judgment’s allegation that there was an error in the misapprehension of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case on which 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 permitted. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant B, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

2. According to the record as to Defendant C’s grounds of appeal, Defendant C appealed appealed on the judgment of the first instance, and only asserted unreasonable sentencing as the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to "public offering" and "joint principal offender" due to the violation of the rules of evidence is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Furthermore, even after ex officio review of the judgment of the court below, there is no error as alleged in the ground of appeal by Defendant C.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant C, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

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