1. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, criminal facts should be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence based on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal on the grounds of mistake of facts is nothing more than disputing the judgment of the court below on the selection and probative value of evidence belonging to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the above defendant, the argument that the above defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable cannot be

2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to Defendant B and C’s grounds of appeal, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed. Thus, the allegation that the above Defendants’ punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground of appeal as stipulated in the above provision.

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