All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that Defendant A was guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable.

In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles, without exhausting all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of 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 and the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendant B was guilty of the conjunctive facts charged for the reasons indicated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the relevant legal principles.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only a case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed is permitted for an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against Defendant B, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the court below reversed the judgment of the first instance that found Defendant C, D, and E guilty of the charges of this case on the grounds that there is no proof of crime, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty of the charges of this case. The court below did not recognize the above Defendants as aiding and abetting ex officio without changing the indictment, on the grounds that there is no proof of the intention

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the above decision of the court below is erroneous, and it is offered as a principal offender.