All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant J’s grounds of appeal, Article 51 of the Criminal Act and whether the circumstances prior to the opening of the sentence are widely considered to belong to the court’s discretion in relation to the determination of the sentence. Thus, the court of final appeal may not decide whether the lower court’s judgment regarding the suspension of sentence and whether the conditions prior to the opening of the sentence are obvious, unless it adjudicates on the grounds of final appeal as to the validity of the punishment in a case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years pursuant to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, unless the judgment of the lower court rendered a judgment on

(2) In light of the legal principles as to the suspended sentence or suspended sentence, the lower court’s assertion that there is an error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the suspended sentence or suspended sentence is merely a criticism on the lower judgment on the ground that the amount of punishment imposed by the lower court is unreasonable, and thus, cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Where Defendant K’s ground of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed, to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) only the prosecutor appealeds the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground of unfair sentencing, and the Defendant did not appeal, the Defendant may not file a ground of appeal, such as misconception of facts

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do579 Decided May 28, 2009). According to the records, only the prosecutor appealed against the first instance judgment on the defendant on the ground of unfair sentencing. The lower court accepted the prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing and reversed the part against the defendant in the first instance judgment. Thus, the allegation that the lower judgment erred in mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

In addition, the defendant's punishment was significantly changed.