1. Defendant case

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the Defendants’ grounds of appeal in light of the record, it is justifiable for the lower court to have rejected the Defendants’ and the respondent for attachment order A (hereinafter “Defendant A”)’s assertion on mental and physical disability based on the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower

On the other hand, the argument that the court below violated the principle of balanced criminal punishment and the principle of accountability in sentencing against the defendants is ultimately an argument of unreasonable sentencing.

According to 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 Defendant B, an appeal may not be filed with the Supreme Court on

Defendant

In light of A’s sentencing, examining various circumstances, including the above Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime was committed, and criminal records, etc., the determination of the lower court’s sentence which upheld the first instance judgment that sentenced 14 years of imprisonment with prison labor cannot be deemed to be extremely unfair.

B. As to the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance and judged not guilty of the grounds for appeal on the ground that the "emergency mental disorder" that the victim occurred in relation to the defendant A cannot be deemed as "injury" as referred to in the crime of robbery injury, among the facts charged in this case against the defendant in this case, and judged not guilty of the grounds for appeal by the defendant B. In relation to the defendant B, the victim is on the number of units from the defendant A.