2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant agreed with the victim. The instant crime appears to have been contingent. The Defendant appears to have committed a crime in Korea; the Defendant’s primary crime or the Defendant’s head and face by cutting down the victim’s head and face with beer balance; the degree of injury to the victim is not good; the degree of injury is not less severe; the Defendant cannot be found to have any special change in circumstances that may change the sentencing after the lower judgment; the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and the circumstances after the instant crime, etc. are considered in light of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and consequence of the instant crime; and it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the lower court is too inappropriate and unfair. Therefore, the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion is without merit.

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 decided as per Disposition.