The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the original court’s imprisonment (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable;

2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with 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.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (B)

The lower court determined a punishment against the Defendant by considering the following circumstances: (a) under favorable circumstances in which the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake and reflects; (b) the degree of assault and insult is not serious; (c) the Defendant was punished for the same crime more than 20 times; and (d) the Defendant was sentenced more than six times; (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime without being during the period of repeated offense; (c) the Defendant did not faithfully comply with the demand for attendance of the court; (d) the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victims; and (e) the Defendant submitted a written agreement stamped the victim D’s unmanned sign on March 13, 2020; (c) however, in light of the developments and contents of the said agreement and telephone communications at the court of the lower trial on June 24, 2020, it is difficult to view that the said victim expressed a genuine intent not to have the Defendant punished; and (e) the victims ought to be deemed to have desired the Defendant’s punishment.

C. Based on the above legal principle, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the court below, and there is no other reason to view that the court below’s punishment was too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, considering the following factors, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

Therefore, Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

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