All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A and B, Defendant A and B appealed against the judgment of the first instance court, and only asserted the unfair sentencing on the grounds of appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake of facts is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, pursuant 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 may be filed on the grounds of unfair sentencing. As such, in this case where Defendant A and B were sentenced to more minor punishment, the argument that punishment is unfair because it is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the grounds for appeal by Defendant C and D, only in the case on which death penalty, imprisonment for life or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years has been pronounced, an appeal may be filed on the ground that the judgment of the court below had affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, in this case where Defendant C and D were sentenced to a more minor sentence, the grounds of appeal that misleads the misunderstanding of the legal principles are merely the purport of disputing the lower court’s determination of evidence selection and probative value or finding facts based on such determination, or pointing out misunderstanding of the legal principles on the premise of facts different from the facts recognized by the lower court, and thus, cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal

3. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court upheld the first instance judgment that acquitted Defendant C on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding attempted crimes among the facts charged against Defendant C.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below erred by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.