All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s case, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion as to the mental and physical loss of the Defendant’s and the person who was in charge of care and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”).

In light of the evidence, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust the deliberation on mental and physical loss or by misapprehending the fact of violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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 not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. Thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant.

In addition, the argument that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below is not a legitimate ground for appeal since the defendant alleged that it was the ground for appeal or that it was not subject to a judgment ex officio by the court below, and it did not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal as provided in each subparagraph of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence, the lower court did not err by maintaining the first instance judgment of the Defendant in relation to the medical care and custody claim, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.