All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental statements in the grounds of appeal filed by Defendant B, for which the grounds of appeal are not timely filed).

1. Review of the record on the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal reveals that Defendant A appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and Defendant A asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles is not a legitimate ground for 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, the argument that Defendant A’s minor punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. 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 was justifiable to have determined that all of the facts charged against Defendant B was guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

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

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant C’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, proven the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant C.

Therefore, it is justifiable to reverse the judgment of the first instance that acquitted the Defendant, and to find the Defendant guilty.

In doing so, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal and by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles.