All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal concerning mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the Defendants, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting all the Defendants of the facts charged (excluding the part not guilty in the original trial) on the grounds as stated

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and 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 misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of fraud.

2. As to the grounds of appeal on unfair sentencing by the Defendants, Defendant A’s imposition of a sentence by the lower court is excessive, and limiting a case where Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act may be deemed as the grounds of appeal on unfair sentencing by the Supreme Court’s decision is in violation of the constitutional provision stipulating the right of the citizens to a trial

However, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing cannot be deemed as a violation of Article 101(2) of the Constitution or the constitutional provision that limits the right of citizens to a trial by the Supreme Court or an unconstitutional provision contrary to the equality principle.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Therefore, Defendant A’s aforementioned assertion is nothing more than the purport that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

According 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 is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the Defendants, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.