2. In view of the fact that the Defendant appears to recognize and make a confession of the instant crime, and that the victim does not want the punishment against the Defendant by agreement with the victim, the instant crime is not likely to obstruct the victim’s restaurant business by force by force, such as taking another day and time signals from the drinking house, and assaulting other customers.

The Defendant had been sentenced to one time to suspend the execution of imprisonment with prison labor and one fine for a crime related to violence, and the Defendant was found to have committed the instant crime, not only during the period of suspension of the execution, but also during the period of suspension of the execution.

Therefore, there is a need for punishment corresponding to the act and responsibility of the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be unfair due to excessive circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence, and the circumstances after the crime.

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.