2. The facts that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects his mistake are favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the assault of this case and the degree of injury therefrom are not easy, and the defendant committed the crime of this case again during the suspension of execution despite the past record of criminal punishment several times including the same criminal records, and the fact that it seems that there is no recovery of particular damage up to now is disadvantageous to the defendant.

Considering the above circumstances and various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court does not seem to be unfair because the sentence imposed by the Defendant is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed under 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 (Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. is also applicable to the crime of this case by being amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016, and Article 25 of the former Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. was also applicable to the crime of this case. However, in accordance with Article 25 of the Rules on the Criminal Procedure, "the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" in the column of application of the judgment below as "the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6