All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Most of the victims of Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing expressed Defendant A’s intention not to impose punishment.

Co-defendants of the lower court were sentenced to suspended sentence of imprisonment or fine.

Defendant

A The sentence of suspended execution was revoked.

In light of this, the punishment sentenced to Defendant A (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant I’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing by Defendant I is minor to the extent that Defendant I participated in the crime of joint injury to the victim W, and the victim W expressed his intent not to punish the victim.

In light of this, the punishment sentenced to Defendant I (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The victim AF expressed his intention not to punish Defendant A when the judgment on Defendant A’s assertion was in the first instance trial. However, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes even when the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for the same kind of crime; and (b) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and consequence of the crime; and (c) the circumstances after the crime were committed, the sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle as to Defendant I’s assertion, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, compared to the first instance court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment as the new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial court. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the record of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too remote, and thus, exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.