beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Examining the reasoning of Defendant A’s appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of statements in the grounds of appeal filed after the lapse of the period for appeal) in light of evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable to have found Defendant A guilty of all the modified facts charged (excluding the part of the first instance court not guilty) against the Defendant for reasons as stated in its reasoning.
Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of law of logic and experience beyond the bounds of free evaluation of evidence.
In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is sentenced, and thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant Z’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the modified facts charged.
In addition, there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles as to the common principal offender in fraud, without exhausting all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is sentenced, and thus, the argument that the amount of punishment is unfair is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.
3. The lower court’s reasoning of the appeal by Defendant E is legitimate.