2. The elements of sentencing or objective and neutral factors of sentencing are acknowledged, such as the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized, that the degree of mental disorder is not determined, but appears to have committed contingent and shock crimes in the state of drunk influence, that the degree of injury to the victim is relatively minor and that there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine.

However, each of the crimes of this case, which are recognized by the evidence, evidence, rule of evidence and legal principles, is also acknowledged as a disadvantageous sentencing factor or objective and neutral sentencing factor, such as the fact that the defendant committed acts of violence on two occasions, committed indecent acts by force by the defendant using the victim's chest, who was a dangerous object, and inflicted bodily injury upon the victim due to spawn, and who reported it to the police, threatened the victim with the purpose of retaliation three times or more, and the nature of the crime was poor, and the victim did not recover from damage to the victim until the trial even though he suffered considerable damage from each of the crimes of this case.

The above sentencing factors and the range of recommended sentences (one year and six months of imprisonment), the lower court sentenced the lowest sentence after discretionary mitigation (one year and six months of imprisonment), the statutory punishment for each of the crimes of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, Etc., which is the most severe punishment (a collective injury or injury by deadly weapons, etc.) is three years or more, and the Defendant has no grounds for repeated mitigation, such as mitigation of self-denunciation or mitigation of mental or physical disability, as stated in its reasoning, in the instant case where there is no reason for the lower court to reduce the amount of punishment as alleged by the Defendant.