All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant A in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant A guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

On the other hand, according to the records, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the first instance, and argued mental and physical disorder along with mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing as grounds for appeal, but withdrawn the grounds for appeal against mental and physical disorder on the first trial

In such a case, the argument that the lower court did not recognize a mental disorder is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

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 defendant, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal under

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to Defendant B in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged of this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and there was no error by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules,

Meanwhile, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, it is justifiable for the lower court to have rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the mental and physical disorder on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there was no error

And the defendant's age, character intelligence and environment, records of crimes, and this.