All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the grounds for appeal by Defendant B, an appeal may be filed only for a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been pronounced. As such, in the instant case where Defendant B was sentenced to a more minor punishment, the argument that the sentence is too unreasonable is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant C’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 found Defendant C guilty of the modified facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of the crime of robbery by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

3. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant D, the argument that the lower court erred in the misapprehension of the legal principle, mistake of facts, misunderstanding of reasoning, or omission of reasons concerning sentencing conditions constitutes an unfair argument of sentencing.

In that sense, according 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 Defendant D’s punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

4. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant E, the argument that there was an error of misunderstanding of the legal principles as to fraud in the judgment below is not a legitimate ground for appeal since Defendant E claims that there was no ground for appeal, or that there was no ground for appeal by the court below to be judged ex officio.

And the judgment of the court below.