1. Where the judgment of the court below on the ground of appeal by Defendant B contains grounds for a request for retrial, it may be the grounds for appeal, and the "when clear evidence is newly discovered" to acknowledge innocence, etc. against the person who was pronounced guilty refers to the time when new evidence was newly discovered or could not be submitted even if it was not discovered or discovered in the previous litigation procedures. Thus, it cannot be deemed that Defendant B's new evidence is "when clear evidence is newly discovered," which may constitute grounds for retrial since it is already submitted in the first instance trial. Thus, this part of the grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.

In addition, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less 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 amount of punishment is unreasonable

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 exceeding

In addition, in this case where a sentence of imprisonment with labor for less than 10 years is imposed against Defendant D, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. The argument that Defendant E’s ground of appeal contains an error of violating Article 51 of the Criminal Act due to incomplete deliberation on the grounds for sentencing.