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 is justifiable to have found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding

Meanwhile, 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 on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the argument that the sentencing of a sentence is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Furthermore, even in examining records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant.

2. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant D in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court is justifiable to have found Defendant D guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by violating logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

Meanwhile, the argument that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to facts and legal errors is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal that the defendant did not consider it as grounds for appeal or that the court below did not consider it as subject to

Furthermore, even in examining records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as alleged by the Defendant.

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