All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the grounds of appeal on Defendant A’s grounds of appeal in light of the reasoning of the lower judgment that there was an error of violation of the principle of balanced criminal punishment and the principle of accountability or mistake of facts, etc., the above assertion constitutes an assertion of unfair sentencing.

However, 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 against Defendant A, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable, including the above argument

In addition, other grounds of appeal by the above defendant do not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. As to Defendant C’s grounds of appeal, criminal facts should be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence based on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that Defendant C participated in the crime of special larceny of this case, and rejected the grounds for appeal concerning the mistake of facts against the above Defendant.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is merely an error in the judgment of the court below as to the choice of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment of the court of fact-finding.

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the above legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

3...