1. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment in relation to the Defendant case, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendant was guilty of robbery among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, such as misconception of facts.

In addition, examining various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the record, such as the age, intelligence, and environment of the Defendant and the person requesting the custody for the treatment and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”), relationship with the victims, the motive and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., even if considering the circumstances alleged by the Defendant, the determination of the sentence of the lower court, which maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced the Defendant to 30 years imprisonment, is extremely unfair.

2. As long as the Defendant filed an appeal against the Defendant’s medical treatment and custody application case, the appeal is deemed to have been filed as to the medical treatment and custody application case.

However, there is no indication of the reason in the petition of appeal, and there is no reason to view it as the reason 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.