All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Since a person who drives a vehicle on the day of the instant case is not Defendant A but Defendant B, each of the facts charged in the instant case prior to a different premise is not guilty.

B. The lower court’s sentence imposed on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to make a judge sure that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to form such a conviction, even if there is doubt that the defendant is guilty, it should be determined as the benefit of the defendant. However, such conviction should not be formed by direct evidence, unless it violates the rules of experience and logic, but it can be formed by indirect evidence. Even if indirect evidence has no full probative value as to the facts of crime individually, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value that can not be established independently in relation to the whole evidence, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value that can not be established independently, the facts constituting a crime can be acknowledged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4392, Nov. 27, 2001). The court below's assertion that the defendant's driver was driving on the day of the instant case on the day that he made a statement to the police officer of the above defendant at the time he made a statement.