All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant A 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 A was guilty of all of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical

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, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

2. According to the records on Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, Defendant B appealed against the first instance judgment, and asserted a mistake of facts with respect to mistake of facts on the date of the first trial of the lower court, but withdrawn the grounds of appeal regarding mistake of facts on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the court below erred in incomplete deliberation and mistake of facts cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing erred by misunderstanding of facts on the basis of sentencing, infringing on fundamental rights under the Constitution, or violating the principle of equality or proportionality, etc. is ultimately an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, according to 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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where Defendant B was sentenced to a more minor sentence, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.