All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court determined that the seized Aopon 7 flus (No. 22) offered to commit a criminal act and falls under the subject of confiscation.

Examining the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The argument that the lower court erred in hearing the sentencing conditions is ultimately unfair.

According to Article 383 (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 declared, an appeal can be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing.

Therefore, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. The lower court convicted Defendant B of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Kameras, etc.) around May 2015 among the facts charged against the Defendant.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (a camera, etc.).

As seen above, the argument that the lower court’s failure to deliberate on the sentencing conditions constitutes an unfair claim for sentencing, and that the Defendant’s punishment is too unfair due to its excessive absence of punishment, in this case where a death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years, is sentenced.

3. The Defendants’ final appeal is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.