2. (1) Determination is that Defendant A has no particular criminal history except a suspended sentence of imprisonment for a long time due to a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and that Defendant A has agreed with the upper and upper Defendant should be considered as favorable circumstances.

However, the above circumstances appear to have been reflected in the punishment of the court below whose execution of imprisonment had already been postponed, and the defendant's crime is highly likely to take the head of a female defendant as a beer disease, which is a dangerous object due to large days, and the nature of the crime is not good, first of all, the defendant's responsibility for attacking the above defendant is larger, and in light of the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, circumstances after the crime, criminal records, etc., as well as various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of this case, it cannot be deemed improper for the court below's punishment to be too unreasonable.

(2) A favorable circumstance may be considered in light of the following: (a) Defendant B was sentenced to a fine due to a violation of the Food Sanitation Act; (b) there is no particular criminal history; and (c) the upper and upper Defendant agreed with the Defendant.

However, the above circumstances already reflect the lower court’s punishment; the Defendant’s crime also was highly dangerous to inflict bodily injury on the head of the upper defendant; the statutory penalty applied to the Defendant is limited to imprisonment for at least three years; however, it is difficult for the lower court to determine the maximum punishment within the term of the punishment and to expect more minor punishment as long as the execution thereof has been postponed; and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and motive for the crime.