1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, the argument that there was an error in violation of Article 51 of the Criminal Act due to the violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation as to the grounds for sentencing is ultimately an unfair sentencing argument. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only when the court below rendered a judgment of death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years. Thus, the argument that the amount of the punishment imposed on Defendant

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on Defendant B’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of

Meanwhile, 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 Defendant B, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not

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