Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent A, B, C, and prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

In addition, the defense counsel of the defendant A and the defendant A submitted to the court for the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") asserted that the whole criminal facts of this case were erroneous in violation of the rules of evidence in the statement of grounds for appeal submitted to the court, but the above mistake of facts was withdrawn during the third trial

The defendant with mental disability was in a state of mental disability due to mental problems, such as overcoming circumstances at the time of each of the crimes in this case.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (25 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

In addition, the defendant who was requested to attach an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") was not guilty of committing murder with A, etc. and did not have the intention of murder.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (13 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The court below's unfair order to attach an electronic tracking device for five years is unfair.

Defendant

In addition, Defendant C and Defendant C’s defense counsel for the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter “defendant”) asserted that the robbery of this case and the whole criminal facts of special robbery were erroneous in the appellate brief submitted to this court. However, during the third trial of the trial of the first instance court, the court withdrawn the assertion of mistake of facts as to the remaining portion of the criminal facts of the special robbery of this case except for the portion of December 20, 2013.

On December 20, 2013, the Defendant was found guilty of the part of the Defendant on December 20, 2013 among the special robbery crimes in this case, since the doping of the Defendant was not located at the scene of the crime. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (10 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

It is unfair that each sentence imposed by the court below to the Defendants is too uneasible.

According to the records of judgment on the defendant A's claim of mental disability, the defendant's each of the cases in this case.