All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant J’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant J was guilty of the special confinement among the modified charges of this case against Defendant J on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable, and there was no error by misapprehending the legal principles.

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 more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the argument that the sentence is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the grounds for appeal by the Defendant K, M,O, A, S,C, AE, and H, the argument that the lower court erred by infringing on the essential contents of the principle of balance of punishment or the principle of responsibility for the determination of sentencing is ultimately an unfair argument for sentencing.

Therefore, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, an appeal may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in the instant case where a minor sentence is imposed against the Defendants, the argument that the determination of punishment is unfair, including the foregoing argument, is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, Defendant AH’s assertion to the effect that the date of sentence should not be transferred to another prison may not be a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Review of the record on the grounds of appeal by Defendant Q and R reveals that the Defendants appealed against the judgment of the first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the investigation procedures is not a legitimate ground for appeal.