All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Examining the reasoning for Defendant A’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable in maintaining the judgment of the first instance court that ordered the confiscation of the 1,701 Won Won Won (Evidence No. 1) and 1,091 (Evidence No. 2) seized from Defendant A for the reasons indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the single offense and confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal may be filed only for a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed. As such, in this case where a minor sentence has been imposed against Defendant A, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of Defendant B’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that Defendant B was guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, according 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 more than ten years is imposed, and an appeal is allowed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Therefore, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed on Defendant B, the sentence is too excessive.