All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds for appeal filed by the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order A (hereinafter “Defendant A”).

A. Examining the following circumstances with respect to Defendant A’s case, including Defendant A’s age, criminal records, sex, environment, relationship with the victim, motive means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, there are substantial grounds to recognize that the lower court’s determination of the sentence, which maintained the first instance judgment that sentenced Defendant A to imprisonment with prison labor for life, is extremely unfair even when considering the circumstances asserted by Defendant A.

subsection (b) of this section.

In addition, among the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, the part that “the court below erred by violating the Constitution, laws, orders, and rules, or by misunderstanding the legal interest, which affected the conclusion of the judgment” is only stated in such assertion, but not stating specific grounds for it, it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal.

B. As to the case of the claim for attachment order, inasmuch as the defendant A filed an appeal against the defendant's case, the appeal is deemed to have been filed regarding the case of the claim for attachment order.

However, there is no indication of the reason in the petition of appeal and there is no reason for the appeal as well as the reason for appeal.

2. As to the grounds for appeal filed by the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order D (hereinafter “Defendant D”)

A. Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment in relation to the Defendant case, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant D guilty of all of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the evidence trial principle, joint principal offender, and forced conduct