1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted Defendant A of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. against Defendant A among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

The lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the investigation of naval vessels, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error in the calculation of additional collection charges is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is asserted by the defendant A as the ground for appeal or as not subject to an ex officio judgment by the court below.

On the other hand, the argument that the court below reversed the judgment of the first instance but sentenced the same punishment is illegal is ultimately an unfair argument in 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 more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the punishment of Defendant A is improper because it is too unreasonable in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against Defendant A cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant B’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, it is justifiable for the lower court to have convicted Defendant B of all of the facts charged in the instant case of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. and violation of the Narcotics Control Act (fence) on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the legality of emergency arrest and aiding and abetting, or by infringing on the right to assistance of the national defense counsel, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.