All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor against Defendant A, the lower court, on October 23, 2012, acquitted Defendant A on the ground that there was no proof of a crime regarding the violation of the Child Welfare Act and the injury to Defendant A, among the charges modified in the instant case, on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

In addition, even in cases where a sentence of death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed on the defendant, a prosecutor may not appeal the defendant on the ground that the punishment is extremely weak under the interpretation of Article 383 subparagraph 4 of

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do1687 Decided April 25, 2013, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, acquitted Defendant B on the ground that there was no proof of a crime regarding the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal on Defendant B’s ground of appeal on the ground that there was no proof of a crime regarding the act of goe and neglect among the modified facts charged against Defendant B, violation of the Child Welfare Act, which is the primary facts charged with respect to the act of confinement in toilets

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

3. As to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal, the allegation that the lower court erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the grounds of sentencing constitutes grounds of unfair sentencing.

However, according to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence against Defendant B is imposed, the sentence would be too unreasonable.