All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds for Defendant A’s appeal, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of violating the Telecommunications Business Act among the facts charged against Defendant A on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, 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 joint principal offenders.

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 prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. Thus, the argument that the above defendant's punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant C, the lower court rejected Defendant C’s assertion that evidence, such as seized articles, is inadmissible as evidence of unlawful collection, on the ground that the procedure, such as urgent arrest of the said Defendant and seizure of evidence inside a studio and an officetel, conducted in the instant studio and an officetel with the consent of Defendant C, was lawful, based on the following grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and the records, including the evidence duly admitted, the lower court erred in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on warrant requirement, the exclusion of illegally collected evidence, and the admissibility of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal.

subsection (b) of this section.

In addition, the argument that there is an error of law that adopted the evidence of illegal collection by voluntary accompanying as evidence is based on the appeal by the defendant C or the court below's decision is subject to judgment ex officio.