1. According to the records as to Defendant C’s grounds of appeal, Defendant C appealed appealed on the judgment of the first instance, and only asserted unreasonable sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

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

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. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant C, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for

2. According to the records as to Defendant F’s grounds of appeal, Defendant F appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds of appeal.

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

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. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant F, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal

Meanwhile, even if Defendant F voluntarily surrendered, the court can reduce or exempt the punishment for the self-denunciation at its own discretion (Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act). Therefore, the lower court’s failure to reduce the self-denunciation cannot be deemed unlawful.

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