All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, Defendant A and C, who appealed from the judgment of the first instance, claimed a mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle along with the grounds for appeal, but withdrawn the grounds for appeal as to mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principle on the third trial date of the lower court, thereby leaving only the grounds for appeal as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, Defendant A and C’s assertion to the effect that the lower court erred in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, 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 not less 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 on the Defendants, the judgment below

The argument to the effect that punishment is too unreasonable is also not a legitimate ground for appeal.

Meanwhile, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds of 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 rights of citizens to a trial by the Supreme Court or an unconstitutional provision contrary to the principle of equality

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Therefore, the Defendants’ ground of appeal that Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act is unconstitutional cannot be accepted.

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