All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records as to the appeal by Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, it is evident that the Defendants asserted in the appellate brief that the first instance court found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case against the Defendants in the grounds of appeal that there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the degree of temporary recreation and confiscation.

Nevertheless, since the court below did not make any judgment on the above argument, it constitutes omission of judgment.

However, in full view of the evidence duly admitted by the court of first instance, it is justifiable in its conclusion that the court below found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case and maintained the judgment of the court of first instance ordering confiscation as it is. There is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the degree of temporary recreation and confiscation in the crime of gambling, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. Thus, the omission of the judgment by the court of first instance does not affect

In addition, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the Defendants, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. According to the records on Defendant H’s appeal, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to gambling does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

Moreover, as seen earlier, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only for a case where imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been sentenced, and thus, in this case where the Defendant was sentenced to a fine, the allegation that the sentence of the lower court is unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.