The punishment sentenced by the court below (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 the sentencing of the first instance court as an appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime.

The Defendant committed the instant crime in the course of giving lessons to the victims of tobacco smoking.

However, the defendant has been punished several times for the same crime, and has committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime.

The defendant was the head of the victim due to a so-called so-called so-called 's illness', and considering the method of committing the crime and the degree of assault, the criminal intent of the crime of this case is bad.

The victim did not recover from damage, and did not receive a letter from the victim.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of various conditions of sentencing, such as Defendant’s age, health status, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and consequences, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court following the lower judgment, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed unfair beyond the scope of reasonable discretion.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit and thus dismissed pursuant to Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.