All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Defendant case;

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (to the extent of supplement in case of any statement in the written appeal filed after the deadline for submitting the written appeal) by the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order, the lower court is justifiable to reject the Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”)’s assertion on mental and physical disability, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no

In addition, the argument that Defendant A may receive a mental evaluation again from another doctor, not from the original appraiser, does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, considering various circumstances, including the age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the determination of the lower court’s punishment, which maintained the first instance court that sentenced 25 years to Defendant A, even if considering the circumstances asserted by Defendant A and the state appointed defense counsel, is extremely inappropriate.

Meanwhile, the argument to seek a claim for medical treatment and custody against Defendant A does not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant B in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant B guilty of committing robbery among the facts charged in the instant 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 the logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

Defendant B-.