All appeals are dismissed.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, the argument that the lower court infringed on the essential contents of the principle of balance of criminal punishment or the principle of responsibility when determining sentencing constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

In that sense, under Article 383 subparagraph 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, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against Defendant A does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, Defendant B, on the grounds of appeal, convicted Defendant B of the fact that Defendant B’s use of the electronic records, etc., such as the electronic records, the electronic records, etc., and the leakage of secrets for official duties, among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant B, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, the crime of forgery of electronic records, etc., the

However, even if examining the relevant legal principles and records, there is no such error in the judgment of the court below.

Meanwhile, Defendant B filed an appeal against the remaining guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, but there is no indication of the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal and there is no indication of the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal.

3. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant C, Defendant C, on the grounds of appeal, asserts that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the ex post facto bribery charges of Defendant C, on May 3, 2016, among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant C, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the ex post facto bribery charges.

However, even if examining the relevant legal principles and records, there is no such error in the judgment of the court below.

Meanwhile, Defendant C filed an appeal against the remaining guilty portion of the judgment below, but the grounds of appeal are not stated in the petition of appeal, and the grounds of appeal also stated in the petition of appeal.