All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Review of the records on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, D, and E reveals that Defendant A, D, and E appealed against the judgment of the first instance and only asserted unfair sentencing as the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

Defendant

D and E asserts to the effect that the lower court’s sentence is too heavy, and that limiting the cases in which Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act may serve as the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing would infringe on the right to trial.

However, Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act that limits the grounds for appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing cannot be deemed as an unconstitutional provision in violation of the Constitution that limits the rights of citizens to be tried by the Supreme Court.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1808, Apr. 26, 2007). Accordingly, Defendant D and E’s above assertion is nothing more than the purport that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted. Thus, in this case where Defendant D and E are sentenced to a minor sentence, the argument that punishment is too unreasonable is not legitimate grounds for appeal.

2. As to the Defendant C’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted Defendant C of the facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or misapprehending the legal doctrine on “activities as a member of a criminal organization” under Article 4(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and omitting necessary judgment.