2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). The Defendant is the primary offender, and the victim D wishes to be the Defendant’s prior wife.

However, the crime of this case is highly likely to be criticized in light of the method and aspect of injury, etc. by putting the head part of the victim, who is a wife of the dangerous object, up to two times due to the chemicalization of the dangerous object of the defendant, and there is no new change in circumstances that could change the punishment of the court below in the trial.

In addition, when comprehensively taking into account the circumstances leading up to the defendant's crime, the degree of injury of the victim (damage of two fess that need to be treated in about two weeks), the relationship with the victim, health conditions, etc., as shown in the deliberation by the court below and the party, the punishment imposed by the court below is not heavy, since it was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. Accordingly, 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.