1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, B, and C, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendant A, B, and C of the facts charged, for the reasons indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the legality of emergency arrest, co-principal, special confinement and the establishment of the crime of injury by robbery, etc.

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. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against Defendant A, B, and C, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

2. As to Defendant D’s grounds of appeal, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant D of the facts charged on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and found Defendant D guilty.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to joint principal offenders, or by violating the principle of court-oriented trial and the principle of direct examination.

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