All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, we first point out that the lower court erred in its findings of fact as to the crime of aiding and abetting the victim I among the facts charged in the instant case and aiding and abetting the fraud listed in the annexed list of crimes in the judgment of the first instance.

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise thereof are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating logical and empirical rules.

In light of the records, in this case where it is not possible to find out that the facts established by the court below exceeded the above limit even after examining the reasoning of the judgment below, the above appeal shall not be accepted merely because it criticizes the matters falling under the exclusive authority of the court below.

In addition, examining the following circumstances: the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, relationship with victims, motive, means and process of committing a crime, and circumstances after committing a crime, the determination of the lower court’s sentence that sentenced the said Defendant to ten years of imprisonment cannot be deemed to be extremely unfair.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor of the instant case, which affected the conclusion of the lower court’s fact-finding as to Defendant A’s murder committed against Defendant B’s victim H, Defendant B’s murder committed against Defendant B, and fraud listed in the annexed crime List (2) of the first instance judgment.

However, the recognition of facts and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise thereof are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless it goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating logical and empirical rules.

In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding, etc. cannot find out that it exceeded the above limit even after examining the reasoning of the judgment below, and the above appeal is discussed by the court below.