1. As to the Defendants’ ground of appeal

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) Defendant A, B, and C conspired with each other to kill the victim and commit a theft; (b) Defendant A, B, and C conspired with each other to abandon the victim’s body; and (c) Defendant D conspired with each other to abandon the victim’s body; and (d) aided and abetted Defendant A, B, and C by strengthening the resolution in murdering the victim.

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of joint principal offenders or by omitting judgment.

B. Examining all the circumstances that form the basis for sentencing, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, the background and content of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime, and appraisal of damage, as indicated in the records of the inappropriate sentencing, the sentence of the first instance court maintained by the lower court cannot be deemed to be extremely unfair.

In addition, there is no error of violating the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change in determining punishment against Defendant D.

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, Defendant D’s assertion that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the prosecutor’s allegation in the grounds of appeal, the court below held that Defendant C conspired with Defendant A and B and abandoned the dead victim’s body under the unsloping paths. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient to support the Defendant C’s above-mentioned defendant A and B.