All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A and B, the lower court convicted all of the charges against Defendant A and B on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the constituent activities of organizations, etc.) and commercial concurrence.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant C, the lower court convicted Defendant C of all the charges on Defendant C on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of aiding and abetting a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (organization activity).

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 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 Defendant C, the argument that the punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate

3. According to the records on Defendant E’s grounds of appeal, Defendant E asserted mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles with the grounds of appeal, while appealed from the judgment of the first instance court, but withdrawn the grounds of appeal as to mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the date of the first trial of the lower court.

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