All appeals are dismissed.

1. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant A on the grounds that there was no proof of crime regarding the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A.

The prosecutor asserts to the effect that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on intention or misunderstanding facts in violation of the rules of evidence, or by misapprehending the said rules.

However, even if examining the relevant legal principles and records, there is no such error in the judgment of the court below.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, Defendant B convicted Defendant B of the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds of appeal, the lower court alleged to the effect that it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on changes in the form and quality under the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, and joint principal offenders for public offering

However, even if examining the relevant legal principles and records, there is no such error in the judgment of the court below.

Meanwhile, the argument that the court below erred in imposing excessive responsibilities against Defendant B is ultimately unfair in sentencing.

Accordingly, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal may be filed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. As such, the argument that the determination of punishment is unfair in this case where Defendant B was sentenced to minor punishment, is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the grounds for appeal by Defendant C, only a case on which death penalty, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been pronounced, an appeal may be filed on the ground that the judgment of the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment, or that the amount of the punishment has

Defendant

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against C, it is subject to the lower court’s exclusive right.