2. The circumstances in the lower court’s judgment on the grounds of sentencing (i.e., mobilization of accomplices on the ground of the initial crime, agreement, and minor reasons, and the victim’s serious injuries by using a non-discriminatoryly and dangerous object) and there is no change in circumstances after the lower court’s judgment, and the Defendant did not directly participate in the assault against the victim E.

In doing so, they asserted to the effect that such circumstances should be reflected in the sentencing, and they made a statement corresponding thereto in the court of the first instance, but they were assaulted by three persons including the Defendant in the investigative agency.

In full view of all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the fact that it is difficult to easily believe the court's oral statement of E through two times, the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is judged appropriate, and the defendant's assertion is not unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, since it is apparent that the entry of reduction of volume was omitted by mistake in the application of the statutes in the judgment below, it is corrected by adding "Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Procedure Act to "Article 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Act on Criminal Procedure" ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.