All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the reasons for the appeal by Defendant A and B, criminal facts should be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and the probative value of evidence which is based on the premise of fact-finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court (Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). For the reasons indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the above Defendants’ act does not constitute legitimate act, legitimate defense, or excessive defense, and rejected the grounds for appeal by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of legal principles. (2) The lower court reversed the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant, on the ground that the above Defendants’ act did not constitute a legitimate act, or a legitimate defense or excessive defense. (3) As to the special injury portion as prescribed in Article 1 of the lower judgment against Defendant A, it is recognized that the intent of joint processing and functional control over the Defendant’s act is recognized, and thus, reversed the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is the purport of disputing the determination of the lower court on the facts leading to such determination. It is nothing more than denying the lower court’s determination on the selection and probative value of evidence, which belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court. In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on justifiable acts, defense by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence, and by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, examining the grounds for appeal by Defendant A and B to the effect that there was an error of trial error, misunderstanding of legal principles, or violation of the principle of accountability in the determination of sentencing, in light of the reasoning of the lower judgment, this is nothing more than the purport of substantially disputing the sentencing of the lower court. Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.