All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of any statement in the supplemental appellate brief filed by Defendant A, even in the time limit for submitting the appellate brief).

1. According to the records as to 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 argument that there is an error of mistake in part of the judgment of the court below is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below erred by infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balance of crime and the principle of responsibility or failing to take into account the balance with the accomplice is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument. However, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, the argument that the sentencing of the defendant A is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant B and C’s grounds of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court or the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant B and C guilty of each of the instant charges against the victim GP and BO on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, 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 evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on co-principal, or failing

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balanced criminal punishment or the principle of responsibility, is ultimately an unreasonable sentencing argument, and according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act.