2. The lower court determined that the Defendant was guilty of multiple violence;

In addition, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of even during the period of probation, and the Defendant committed the instant crime even after being sentenced to a fine after the judgment on the suspension of the first instance trial of the instant case, and even after being sentenced to a fine after the judgment on the suspension of the execution of the first instance trial of the instant case, considering unfavorable circumstances such as: (a) the commission of the instant crime; (b) the degree of injury is not less severe; (c) the Defendant recognizes and reflects the commission of the crime; and (d) the victim is also suffering from damage by finding and punishing E; and (c) the above sentence was sentenced in consideration of favorable circumstances such as the degree of injury is not a significant letter.

In full view of the fact that there is no change in circumstances to change the sentencing of the lower court, other than the flexible and unfavorable circumstances taken into account by the lower court, and all other conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background leading up to the commission of the crime, means and consequence, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed unfair to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion or maintain it as it is (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Accordingly, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

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, since the defendant's appeal is without merit.