2. The judgment was made by the Defendant upon the personal request of his accomplice M who was aware of his knowledge, and the Defendant was involved in the instant crime, and the Defendant did not seem to have directly benefited from the instant crime, and the primary offender who did not have any criminal record is favorable to the Defendant.

However, as the Defendant: (a) was aware of the victim’s residence without awareness for the purpose of recovering gambling debts two times; or (b) was aware of the victim’s personal status, such as the victim’s status in a local society; and (c) was not good enough to impose psychological pressure; and (d) in the course of committing the crime of committing a total attack and attempted attack, the share of the Defendant’s aforementioned role is less than that of the victim.

In full view of all the sentencing conditions of the court below in the records and arguments in this case where there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances to change the sentencing of the court below since the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable and the punishment imposed by the court below was exceeded the scope of reasonable discretion.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

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.