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

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

2. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant B in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that Defendant B was guilty of the exercise of forged securities among the facts charged in this case against Defendant B on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, 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

Meanwhile, the argument that the public prosecution of this case, which was instituted based on an illegal naval investigation, is null and void in violation of the provisions of law, is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is alleged in the ground of appeal that the defendant did not regard it as grounds for appeal or make it subject to ex officio

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 on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the

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