All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant BH, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the facts charged against Defendant BH on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the aggravation of repeated offenses, etc., and also did not err by misapprehending the Defendant’s right of defense by failing to serve a written decision on renewal of the period of detention on Defendant BH.

The lower court’s assertion that there was an error of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the part of fraud against the victim DI association and the part of the forgery of private documents in BN, and that the Defendant’s right of defense was infringed due to the first instance trial’s unlawful procedure in the case No. 1693, the first instance court’s appeal, which was alleged by Defendant BH only in the final appeal that it was based on the grounds of appeal or that it was not subject to an ex officio determination by the lower court, and thus

2. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant CS, in a case where only the prosecutor appealeds the judgment of the first instance on the grounds that sentencing was unfair, and the Defendant did not file an appeal, the Defendant cannot be deemed as the grounds for appeal on the grounds of appeal, misunderstanding the facts as to the appellate judgment, and citing the violation of the rules of evidence, hearing failure, or violation of laws and regulations (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do16593-1 (Separation) Decided March 21, 2019). According to the records, the Defendant appealed on the grounds that the judgment of the first instance was not appealed, and that only the prosecutor was unreasonable due to the lack of appeal, and that only the prosecutor was so unfair. The lower court accepted the prosecutor’s appeal and rendered a sentence heavier than the judgment of the first instance to Defendant CS.

Therefore, 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 determining the sentencing of the lower court, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the method of sentencing review.