1. Although examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant A in accordance with the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts contrary to the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a crime of voluntary detention of a confession, without any allegations in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, since it belongs to the court's discretion whether to adopt the application for examination of evidence, it cannot be said that the court below's rejection of Defendant A's application for examination of evidence is illegal.

In addition, the argument that the judgment of the court below violated the principle of equality under the Constitution is an unfair argument in sentencing.

In doing so, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is imposed, and an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against Defendant A, the aforementioned argument to the effect that the above purport is not a legitimate ground for

2. While examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant B in accordance with the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court’s judgment that found Defendant B guilty of all the facts charged of this case against Defendant B did not err by violating the rules of evidence, misunderstanding facts beyond the rules of logic and experience, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a crime of voluntary detention of a confession, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, since the court's decision to accept the application for examination of evidence belongs to the court's discretion, the court below's rejection of the application for examination of evidence cannot be deemed to be unlawful, and in this case, the court below's decision cannot be deemed to be unlawful without selecting a national defense counsel against Defendant B.

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