1. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the grounds of Defendant A’s appeal, the lower court’s determination that Defendant A was guilty of all the charges of this case (excluding the part on which the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the grounds of the first instance judgment) against Defendant A on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable.

In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the elements of establishment of crimes of preparation for murder, under the Criminal Procedure Act, the burden of proof, probative value of final and conclusive judgment, the crime of extortion and the crime of obstruction of official duties, the activities of criminal organizations, and the crime of obstruction of duties.

In addition, examining various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as Defendant A’s age and character environment, relationship with victims, motive and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the determination of the sentence of the lower court that maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced Defendant A 10 years of imprisonment with prison labor cannot be deemed as extremely unfair even when considering the circumstances asserted as the grounds for appeal.

2. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court on the grounds of Defendant B’s appeal, the lower court’s determination that all of the facts charged of this case (excluding the part on which the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the grounds of the first instance judgment) against Defendant B was justifiable.

In doing so, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending relevant legal principles.

In addition, the argument that the court below's determination of sentencing contains an error of law that deviates from the inherent limit of sentencing discretion is ultimately an unfair argument for sentencing.

According to Article 383, Paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, punishment of death or imprisonment with or without prison labor for life or for not less than ten years is imposed.