All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records on Defendant A and D’s grounds of appeal, Defendant A and D appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Meanwhile, 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 is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed

Defendant

In this case where a minor sentence is imposed against A and D, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant C, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting Defendant C of the violation of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (a brokerage business, etc.) among the facts charged against Defendant C.

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.

The investigation of this case was unlawful.

The assertion that there was an error of mistake in the part of the judgment below regarding the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic against Defendant C, etc. shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is alleged by Defendant C only in the final appeal that it was the ground for appeal or that it was not subject to an ex officio determination by the court below.

Furthermore, even if examined, the lower court did not err in its judgment as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

On the other hand, Defendant C’s punishment is more severe, and limiting the case where Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which can be considered as the grounds for appeal, stipulates the right of citizens to be tried by the Supreme Court.