All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant C in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that Defendant C was guilty of giving and receiving and administering Mebamins on January 2, 2013 among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant C on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by violating logical and empirical rules

In addition, 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 on Defendant C, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. As such, in this case where Defendant A was sentenced to minor punishment, the allegation that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.