1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal to the effect that the lower court erred by misapprehending or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the basic facts of sentencing, or by exceeding the inherent limits of sentencing discretion, thereby misapprehending the legal doctrine on the method of sentencing examination and sentencing determination, this constitutes an unfair assertion of sentencing.

Accordingly, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the determination of a sentence by the court below, including the above argument, is unfair, is not a legitimate

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant B guilty of the instant facts charged (excluding the portion not guilty of the grounds for appeal) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, 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, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on co-processing doctor and functional control in the conspiracy joint principal offender, and the degree of proof necessary for

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