2. As to the determination of sentencing, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the event that the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, since the first instance court’s inherent area exists in the determination of sentencing.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of the circumstances revealed in the grounds for sentencing (such as: (a) the lower court’s position that the Defendant was unable to receive relief from the Defendant; (b) comprehensively took account of the following: (c) the conditions for all the sentencing (the victim was a criminal who committed an injury, such as an internal and dubing dub, etc. in need of four weeks in consideration of the victim’s face when having obstructed the way in the toilet); (d) the records and arguments of this case were given two weeks in the instant case and six months in the instant case; (c) the victim was paid KRW 3 million out of the treatment expenses; and (d) the Defendant did not receive relief from the Defendant; and (d) there was no evidence to deem that the Defendant made efforts to recover from damage; and (e) the history of punishment several times in the Defendant’s side, etc., the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant appeared to be a child of the Defendant’s child is unreasonable and unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.