2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court considered the Defendant’s (i) the fact that there was a considerable number of years of punishment due to violent acts, and the Defendant committed the instant crime during the suspension period of the execution of the obstruction of business operation, and (ii) took into account the favorable circumstances, (iii) the recognition of and reflects the Defendant’s mistake, and (iv) the victim did not want the Defendant’s punishment, taking into account other factors such as the Defendant’s health condition.

The sentencing of the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by fully taking into account the above sentencing conditions and the various sentencing conditions stated in the investigation before the judgment of the lower court, and there is no special change in circumstances to assess the sentencing of the lower court when it comes to the trial.

Therefore, since the court below's punishment is too excessive and it is not recognized that it is unfair, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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