1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B and C, the lower court’s determination of sentencing erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and by infringing on the right to a trial from a judge under the Constitution constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under 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 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 Defendants, the above assertion and the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable,

2. Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds of appeal on Defendant D’s grounds of unfair sentencing is within the territory of the freedom of formation permitted by the legislative authority, and thus, it cannot be said that the above provision of the Act infringes on the defendant’s right to trial or infringes on the right to equality. Thus, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds

In addition, under 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 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 defendant, the argument that the sentencing of

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