beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted Defendant A of all the charges on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on
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
2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, found Defendant B guilty of each of the facts charged against the victim G, F, H, and I and of violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical
In addition, the argument that the lower court erred by violating the principle of balanced criminal punishment and the principle of accountability is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument.
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. Thus, the determination of the sentence is unreasonable in this case where the defendant was sentenced to