The evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below's judgment as to the argument that the sentencing was unfair, and the following circumstances were revealed in the hearing of the court below, namely, the defendant assaulted the victim's head at the first time.

“The facts charged were prosecuted, but after the date of the first trial of the court below, “the victim’s head was assaulted by the hand floor once.”

In full view of the facts stated that only the facts charged are recognized, and that the prosecutor changed the indictment to the above purport at the second trial date, and the defendant stated that he/she recognized the changed facts charged, the facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below are recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's argument disputing this cannot be accepted.

It is reasonable to respect the judgment of the first-class sentencing in the event that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first-class judgment, and the first-class sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

Although the degree of assault is not severe, damage recovery was made, but it was impossible to recover damage due to the contact with the victim, there was no criminal record of the same kind except fine due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the defendant has consistently engaged in volunteer service activities and donations even though it is economically difficult, the sentencing conditions in the trial have been significantly changed even considering all these circumstances.

It is difficult to view the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, circumstances leading to the Defendant’s crime, means and consequence, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime cannot be deemed unfair because the lower court’s punishment is excessively unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is justified.