All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant D’s grounds of appeal, criminal facts should be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence based on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the court below rejected the grounds for appeal on mistake of facts, on the ground that it was acknowledged that Defendant D had been aware of the fact that the customers, who had been engaged in the N Amusement tavern, were well aware of the fact that he had been involved in the management of the Defendant D through the arrangement

The ground of appeal disputing such fact-finding by the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination on the evidence selection and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by violating the presumption of innocence

In addition, in light of the reasoning of the lower judgment, the grounds alleged in the grounds of appeal that the lower court erred by significantly deviating from the inherent limits of the principle of balance between crimes and the sentencing discretion, the above grounds of appeal constitute the allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, under 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 not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, in this case where a fine has been imposed on Defendant D, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable, including the above argument

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant F, the lower court’s sentencing principle and the principle of responsibility.