All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant B’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have convicted Defendant B of the facts charged (excluding the part not guilty of the grounds for appeal) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the appeal did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

In addition, according to Article 383 (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 is imposed, a final appeal shall be allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Defendant

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on B, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant D’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have convicted Defendant D of the facts charged against Defendant D (excluding the part not guilty of the grounds for appeal) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine without exhausting all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant E’s grounds for appeal in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s judgment that found Defendant E guilty of the facts charged (excluding the part not guilty of the grounds for appeal) is justifiable and acceptable.

In doing so, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Conclusion.