2. The judgment appears to have a favorable attitude, such as the fact that the defendant fully recognized the crime and reflects his/her mistake in depth, and that there is no good health condition.

However, the Defendant repeatedly used violence against the victim, and even after receiving several countermeasures such as transfer of home protection cases, the Defendant assaulted the victim as stated in the facts of crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below.

B. In order for the Defendant to have decided to take ad hoc measures due to the above assault, the Defendant again, as stated in the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (2) of the judgment below, and caused serious injury to the victim, such as cerebral typosis, by making the victim seriously.

In addition, the defendant did not make efforts to recover the damage of the victim, and did not receive any compensation from the victim.

It is inevitable to strictly punish the defendant.

In addition to the various circumstances mentioned above, considering the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act and the result of the application of the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee as stated in the arguments in this case and the records, it cannot be deemed unfair since the sentence imposed by the court below is too excessive to the extent that the defendant is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). Accordingly, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, 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.