All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. While examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of Defendant A’s final appeal in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court, which found Defendant A guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning, 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 intent of murder, contrary to what

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 the victim, motive means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, etc., even if considering the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal, it cannot be said that the lower court’s sentence of 15 years to Defendant A, unlike the first deliberation judgment, is extremely unfair.

Meanwhile, Defendant A’s grounds for appeal that Defendant A’s crime of this case was committed in the state of mental or physical loss or mental weakness (e.g., in a state of drunk or mental or physical weakness), and that Defendant A’s refusal of mental or physical weakness at the time of this case and thereby was a disturbance in labor union adjustment due to suspension of labor union adjustment, shall not be deemed as grounds for appeal, or that Defendant A was already accepted by the lower court, and thus, it cannot be deemed as legitimate grounds for appeal.

2. As to the grounds for appeal concerning the prosecutor's defendant and the person who requested the attachment order B

A. For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant and the requester B of the attachment order on the charge of murder of this case on the ground that there was no proof of the crime, and sentenced the Defendant and the respondent B not guilty.

Even if examining the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

(b).