All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the reasons for Defendant A’s appeal, the recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and the probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). The lower court found Defendant A guilty of special intimidation among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The grounds of appeal disputing this fact-finding by the lower court are merely grounds for the lower court’s determination on the choice of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In addition, even when examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the grounds of appeal that there was an error in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding sentencing and the lack of deliberation on normal data, the allegation in the grounds of appeal in question is nothing more than the purport of substantially disputing the sentencing of the lower court. In such a case, pursuant to Article 383 Subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in a case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is declared, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Therefore, in this case where Defendant A was sentenced to more minor punishment, the argument that the amount

2. Examining the grounds for appeal by Defendant B in light of the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the grounds for appeal that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles regarding sentencing and the lack of deliberation on normal data, the aforementioned grounds for appeal are practically disputing the lower court’s sentencing.