All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the record on the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal, Defendant A appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and only asserted the illegality of sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the court below erred in violation of the principle of balance of punishment or the principle of responsibility for the determination of sentencing is ultimately an unfair argument for sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where Defendant A was sentenced to minor punishment, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair 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 by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that all of the charges of this case against Defendant B was found guilty on the grounds indicated in its reasoning is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free

Meanwhile, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to universal offense, additional collection, or violation of law is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it alleged by Defendant B as the ground for appeal or by the court below’s ex officio that there was no such ground for appeal.

B. Even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, there is an error of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal in this part.

subsection (b) of this section.

In addition, the court below's argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in violating the principle of balance of punishment or the principle of responsibility is unfair.