2. The fact that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes and reflects his mistake in depth, that the Defendant agreed with the Defendant, who is a victim, and that the degree of injury to the victim is not relatively much severe, that the Defendant is able to live in good faith with the victim, and that the present state of the Defendant’s case is not good, etc. are favorable to the Defendant.

However, in addition to the crime of this case, the defendant not only has the record of criminal punishment several times due to violence and bodily injury, but also has committed the crime of this case again despite the period of repeated crime, and it is inevitable to sentence sentence.

Furthermore, the crime of this case is punishable by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years, and even if the statutory mitigation and discretionary mitigation are performed in consideration of the favorable circumstances as seen earlier, the maximum punishment is sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the period of nine months, and the court below appears to have determined the punishment by taking into account all the circumstances favorable to the defendant as above, and other various sentencing factors specified in the argument of this case, it is determined that the punishment sentenced by the court below is within the appropriate scope of sentencing.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.