All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of Defendant C’s supplemental statement of grounds of appeal not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter "defendant") C

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the Defendant case in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of committing robbery and robbery among the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence by violating logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

In addition, considering various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, there is a substantial reason to recognize that the lower court’s sentencing of imprisonment with prison labor for life is extremely unfair even when considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the claim for attachment order in light of the record, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, has the risk of committing murder and robbery against the Defendant.

It is reasonable to order the attachment of an electronic tracking device for a period of 30 years, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to Defendant D’s grounds of appeal

A. Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment in relation to the Defendant case, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of robbery and murder by robbery among the facts charged in the instant case, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle