All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

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

In such cases, the argument that the lower court erred in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the imposition of a fine or a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

B. In addition, even if we look at the judgment below, there is no error of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a minor sentence is imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant BJ, the allegation that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the method of sentencing review and sentencing determination constitutes an unfair argument in sentencing.

However, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where Defendant BJ rendered a minor sentence against Defendant BJ, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and relevant legal principles, the lower court’s determination that Defendant CD was guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (such as the issuance of false tax invoices) against Defendant CD on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court exceeded the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.