All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B and E, the lower court’s determination of sentencing erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to basic facts for sentencing, thereby violating Article 51 of the Criminal Act. The allegation by Defendant B and E constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 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 grounds of unfair sentencing

Defendant

In this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against B and E, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant C, Defendant C did not submit a statement of grounds of appeal within the submission period, and Defendant C did not state the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal.

3. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant FF Co., Ltd., J and N, the lower court convicted Defendant FF Co., Ltd., J and N of the charges on the grounds 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 in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the termination of unfair collaborative acts in violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

4. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant G, the lower court convicted Defendant G of the facts charged against Defendant G 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 erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and by the statute of limitations.