2. The Defendants’ confession that all of the instant crimes were committed, the degree of damage to the victim due to joint assault, or the degree of damage to the patrol car, which is a building of public goods, was significant.

The normal circumstances are recognized such as the fact that it is not visible, and the cost of repairing the patrol car is considered to have been compensated.

However, the sentencing of the court below seems to have been conducted by fully considering the above favorable circumstances.

Rather, the victims of joint assault did not comply with the agreement of the Defendants.

In addition, this Court has applied for strict punishment against the Defendants.

In addition, it is not good that Defendant A has committed violence against the victim and damaged police patrol vehicles dispatched to the scene, etc., and even before committing the instant crime, Defendant A has been punished several times prior to committing the instant crime.

In full view of these circumstances, there is no special circumstance or change of circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing at the appellate court, and all the sentencing conditions in the records and arguments in the instant case, including the Defendants’ age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the lower court, even if considering all the circumstances alleged by the Defendants, was so excessive that the sentence imposed by the Defendants was exceeded the scope of reasonable discretion.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendants' arguments are not accepted.

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