2. It is advantageous to the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime when he was found to have been guilty, and against his wrongness, and that the victim wants the Defendant’s wife by mutual consent with the victim.

However, even around July 2016, the Defendant committed a crime similar to the instant case, and subsequently re-offendered despite having been sentenced to a fine. The Defendant appeared to be an aggressive appearance, such as taking a bath to a police officer called up immediately after the instant crime, and the arrest of a flagrant offender was reached, and multiple fines were imposed.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, background and consequence of the instant crime, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., and all the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, as it is too unreasonable.

3. Conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed for lack of grounds.