2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it in the appellate

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court appears to have determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of various circumstances indicated in the record, such as the following: (a) co-defendant A and the Defendant committed both insult and assault; and (b) the degree of such assault; and (c) there is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial; and (d) even considering all factors of sentencing specified in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive, and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is groundless.

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