1. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant M, the allegation that the lower court erred in determining the sentencing constitutes an unfair determination of sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 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 may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against Defendant M is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. According to the record on the grounds of Defendant N’s appeal, Defendant N appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts, deliberation failure, and misunderstanding of legal principles is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by deviating from the discretionary range of sentencing is ultimately an unfair argument of sentencing.

Accordingly, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 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 may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where Defendant N’s minor punishment has been imposed, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to the grounds for appeal by Defendant T, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the instant facts charged against Defendant T was guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders, as alleged

In addition, in light of the relevant legal principles, the court below's reasons are as stated.