1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found Defendant A guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err 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 probative value of final judgment

In addition, the argument that the court below significantly lacks equity and concrete validity in sentencing constitutes the argument of unfair sentencing.

However, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only for a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, and thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not legitimate

2. According to the records as to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, Defendant B appealed against the judgment of the first instance court, and asserted mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as well as unfair sentencing as the grounds of appeal, but withdrawn the grounds of appeal as to mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the date of the first instance trial

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only the case on which 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, a more minor sentence is imposed on