A. The summary of the judgment of the court below is as follows: (1) The Defendant: (a) his mother, at a hospital in which he was hospitalized, interfered with the operation of the hospital by obstructing the operation of the hospital (Interference with business); (b) thereby, was arrested by the police after having received 112 reports, and was released; (c) in order to take retaliation against the side of the above hospital, the Defendant: (a) steals one hacker and one hacker from the nearby steel storage point; (d) stolen the said hacker and one hacker; (c) destroyed the said hacker and one hacker that were parked at the entrance of the hospital (special property damage); and (d) injured the three hospital employees to control them.

[Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury, etc.) was prosecuted as the charge, and the lower court convicted the Defendant of all the charges, and sentenced the Defendant for ten months.

On the other hand, one of the victims of the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, B filed an application for compensation against the defendant, but the court below rejected the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation on the ground that the scope of compensation is not clear.

The part of the court below's application for compensation became final and conclusive immediately because an applicant for compensation cannot appeal against the judgment dismissing an application for compensation pursuant to Article 32 (4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc.

B. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. 2) The above punishment sentenced by the lower court by the public prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is an unreasonable sentencing case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, the judgment of the court below was revealed in the sentencing process.