All appeals are dismissed.

The defendant B in the second criminal facts of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be "Defendant A".

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it is just to reverse the judgment of the court of first instance which found Defendant B guilty on the grounds that the facts charged in this case with respect to Defendant B did not prove a crime, and to find Defendant B not guilty, and there is no violation of the rules of logic and experience and the principle of free evaluation of evidence

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below as to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below and the first instance court, the court below was just in finding the Defendant guilty of each of the charges of this case on the grounds stated in its holding, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of the law of logic and experience and the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of causing property damage or

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 fine is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. Since it is clear that “Defendant B” in Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure is a clerical error in the facts constituting the second instance of the judgment of the court of first instance, Defendant B is correct ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices