All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the allegation that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on sentencing constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

Therefore, under 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 not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal is permitted based on unfair grounds for sentencing. As such, in this case where Defendant B was sentenced to minor punishment, the argument that the determination of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant C, the lower court found Defendant C guilty of the facts charged against Defendant C (excluding the portion not guilty of the grounds for appeal) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to the timing of the receipt of embezzlement and the joint principal offender.

In addition, pursuant 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 may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a minor sentence is imposed against Defendant C, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair 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.