1. Examining the reasoning of Defendant A’s appeal 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 determined that Defendant A was guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to duties in the obstruction of business or intentional or justifiable acts, without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, pursuant to 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, in this case where a fine is imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not legitimate grounds for appeal

2. Examining the reasoning of Defendant C’s appeal 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 determined that Defendant C was guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by misapprehending the law of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to intentional act or legitimate act in the obstruction of business.

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