Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that all the facts charged (excluding the charges of assault against the Defendants B) against the Defendants on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the degree of assault or intimidation, criminal intent, coercion, intent of unlawful acquisition, causal relationship between violence and bodily injury, establishment of joint principal offender, object of robbery, probative value of evidence in a criminal trial, etc., by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

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 Defendants, the argument that the sentencing of punishment is unreasonable

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