1. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant A 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 A guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated 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 legal doctrine on the intentional act

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law in violation of the rules of evidence and the principles of equality is an unfair sentencing argument.

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 minor sentence has been imposed on the above defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the sentence is unreasonable

2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. Thus, in this case where the above Defendant was sentenced to a minor sentence, the argument that the sentencing of the sentence

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