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 grounds for Defendant A’s appeal, only in a case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is pronounced, an appeal based on unfair sentencing is permitted. As such, the argument that Defendant A’s punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of Defendant B’s appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that Defendant B was guilty of all of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. from Sale and Purchase of Mept Pacs, among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant B, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal, thereby exceeding the bounds of logical and empirical rules and by misapprehending the bounds of free evaluation.

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 Defendant B’s minor punishment is imposed, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.