All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the records on Defendant A’s grounds of appeal, the Defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal.

In such a case, the argument that the lower court erred by mistake and misapprehension of legal principles cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

In addition, under 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 not less 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 has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of violating the Medical Devices Act among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending

B. In addition, if the judgment of the court below has a ground to request a retrial, it may be the ground of appeal, and the "when clear evidence is newly discovered" to recognize the innocence of the person who has been pronounced guilty becomes the ground to request a retrial, which is not found in the previous litigation procedure or was discovered.

Even if the evidence that could not be submitted is newly discovered or can be submitted, the court which rendered the judgment of conviction when determining whether the evidence constitutes “clear evidence to acknowledge innocence, etc.”