All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

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

In such a case, the new argument that the lower court erred by violating the rules of evidence, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, misapprehending the legal principles, or omitting judgment on the assertion of violation of statutes cannot be a legitimate ground

In addition, examining various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, there is no substantial reason to recognize that the sentence of the lower court sentenced to 13 years of imprisonment with prison labor is extremely high even when considering the various circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal.

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

In such a case, a new argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles cannot be 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 labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant B, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable cannot be a

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on Defendant D’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence, the lower court found Defendant D guilty of violating the Narcotics Control Act due to attempted import of phiphonephones on August 2015, 2015, which was the facts charged in the instant case. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine.