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 the sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). A favorable circumstance, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and that the Defendant agreed with the victim, is favorable.

However, the lower court also seems to have determined the sentence in consideration of such circumstances, and there is no change of circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment, in view of the criminal tools used by the Defendant and the degree of assault used by the Defendant, the nature of the crime is not good, the Defendant has the record of the same kind of crime (crime), and other circumstances that form the conditions for the sentencing specified in the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

The defendant's argument of sentencing is not accepted.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and thus, is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure; however, it is corrected that the Defendant’s appeal against the Defendant is dismissed ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which read “1. The Defendant’s partial statement” as “1. The Defendant’s original judgment and the Defendant’s appellate court