Quantitatively analyzing the role of turbulence in the magnetic fluctuation-induced self- generating-organization region and the plasma turbulence-induced self-feeding-sustaining region, which is closely related to the evolution of null points and the magnetic heli- cal structure, represents the key issues in understanding the magnetic energy release- conversion, plasma heating, and charged particles energization and acceleration in three- dimensional large temporal-spatial scale turbulent magnetic reconnection (3D LTSTMR). The first part of this two-paper series developed and validated the continuous kinetic- dynamic-hydro fully coupled temporal-spatial scale relativistic hybrid particle-in-cell and lattice Boltzmann (RHPIC-LBM) model and code for investigating the fine structure evolu- tion of the 2.5D solar atmosphere LTSTMR activities. Based on the model and code devel- oped in Part I, in this paper, we investigate the turbulence of the magnetic helical struc- ture, current density vector fields, self-generating-organization magnetic potential vector fields, self-feeding-sustaining plasma motion, and the ion and electron acceleration of 3D LTSTMR with 10 0,0 0 0 CPU cores on the Tianhe-2 from National Supercomputer Center in Guang Zhou (NSCC-GZ). According to the simulation evidence, we discovered and con- firmed the following results: (i) Slipping magnetic reconnection (MR) exists in the adja- cent magnetic field lines (MFLs) during the compress-stretch-slip process on the quasi- separatrix layers (QSLs and MFLs drastically change and form a linkage span) and the ad- jacent MFLs’ break-rejoin MR exists on the separatrix surfaces (SLs). Both are consistent to observations [1,2]; (ii) The slipping MR (defined as 1 st type MR) and the MFLs' break-rejoin MR (defined as 2 nd type MR) are closely linked with the oblique and resistive tearing in- stabilities, respectively. In the 3D model, the 1 st type MR forms O -type null points, while the 2 nd type MR forms X -type null points. The magnetic energy conversion is dominated by turbulence-induced oblique instabilities in the 3D model instead of the resistive tear- ing instabilities in the 2D/2.5D model, which is consistent with the 3D observations [3–5];