All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the reasons for the appeal by Defendant B, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years has been pronounced, an appeal based on unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, the argument that Defendant B’s punishment is too excessive and unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Although examining the reasoning of Defendant C’s appeal based on evidence, the lower judgment convicting Defendant C of the modified facts charged of this case against the Defendant C, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, and did not err by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience.

In addition, the argument that the court below's failure to deliberate on the sentencing grounds is an unlawful violation of the essential contents of the principle of liability due to the failure to examine the sentencing grounds is ultimately an unfair argument of sentencing.

In doing so, 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 not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal is permitted for the wrongful grounds for sentencing. As such, the argument that the determination of a sentence is unfair in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed against Defendant C does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Although examining the reasoning of Defendant D’s appeal based on evidence, the lower judgment convicting Defendant D of the instant facts charged (except for the portion without charge) against the Defendant, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine of logic and experience.

4. On the grounds of appeal against Defendant D by the public prosecutor, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting Defendant D on the ground that there was no proof of a crime as to the violation of the Medical Service Act stated in the attached Table 3 to 4 to 10, among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant D, on the grounds that there was no proof of crime.