2. Determination

A. The lower court: (a) took into account the following favorable circumstances: (a) the instant crime was committed on the ground that the Defendant was boomed on the part of the victim’s bath; (b) thereby causing damage to the left part of the instant crime by digging out the snow of the snow; (c) by drilling the inner part of the front part of the crime; (d) it is not good to form the crime; and (e) it is committed during the repeated crime period; (e) the degree of injury suffered by the victim, such as the victim’s left eye, real name, etc.; (e) the Defendant did not have any effort to recover damage; (e) the Defendant was an contingent crime; and (e) the Defendant appears to have divided the Defendant’s mistake; and (e) took into account the motive and background leading up to the instant crime; (e) the circumstances leading up to the crime; (e) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct; and (e) various sentencing factors indicated in the instant pleadings, such as the sentencing guidelines, and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than five years (5 years) years).

B. Examining the record, even considering the circumstances cited by the Defendant in the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentencing is not deemed unfairly heavy.

The grounds for appeal are without merit.

(1) The defendant asserted that the defendant 1 did not have any sporadled fish, as stated in the facts charged, and that the defendant did not have any sporadled fish to the victim. However, according to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the above facts are sufficiently recognized, and even if not, the above facts are merely the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, and it does not affect the criminal liability of the defendant). 3. The defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act