All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant A of the facts charged on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on deception and the intent of false accusation in fraud, etc.

Defendant

A asserts that the provision of Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which limits the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, is unconstitutional by infringing equality rights.

However, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is included in the territory of the freedom of formation permitted by the legislative authority. Thus, the above provision of the Act is inconsistent with Article 101(2) of the Constitution, or Article 101(2) of the Supreme Court’s right to a trial, or is unconstitutional

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007; 2017Do2604, Apr. 26, 2017). Ultimately, Defendant A’s assertion constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

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 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 against Defendant A, the argument that punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal

2. As to the Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or in fraud.