2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to 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 such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015, etc.). Although the injured party expressed his/her intention to revoke the complaint against the accused at the investigation stage, and the accused made his/her mistake in the first instance trial, he/she reflects his/her fault. However, although the accused was faced with the victim’s neck, he/she was faced with his/her face to the extent that he/she was faced with his/her hair and her hair by putting the victim’s neck and raising his/her hair, there is a high possibility of criticism in light of the law and circumstances of the instant crime, the victim’s part and degree

In addition, the defendant has experience of being punished three times for violent crimes and is currently subject to repeated crimes, and there is no new change in circumstances that can change the punishment of the court below in the trial.

In addition, when comprehensively considering various sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, relationship with the victim, the number of crimes and circumstances after the crime, as shown in the hearing of the court below and the party deliberation, the punishment imposed by the court below is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not hot.

3. 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.