2. The determination is based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant recognized the facts of the instant crime and reflected his mistake; (b) the value of the damaged property is small amount; and (c) the agreement with the victim is recognized as favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case committed by the defendant was broken down by a so-called so-called "scopic injury" and the nature of the crime is not less severe in light of the risk of the crime. In particular, during the suspension period of execution due to the same kind of crime, the defendant has been punished twice due to a crime against the same victim, and the defendant has already been punished two times in consideration of the circumstances favorable to the defendant. The court below seems to have sentenced the maximum imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) with prison labor, which is sentenced to discretionary mitigation. Considering the above circumstances, considering the defendant's age, character, character, intelligence and environment, motive, means and result of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime, criminal records, and economic circumstances, it is not recognized that the punishment imposed by the court below is unreasonable and too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.