상해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of two years, the observation of protection, and the community service of 80 hours) is too unreasonable.
2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant include the fact that the Defendant recognized and reflected the instant crime, that there are circumstances to consider the occurrence of the instant crime, and that there was an agreement with the victim, etc.
However, even though the Defendant had been punished eight times due to violent crimes (five times of punishment, five times of suspended sentence, one time of suspended sentence, and two times of punishment), the Defendant committed the instant crime, and the injury inflicted on the victim due to the Defendant’s assault does not change the conditions of sentencing to the extent that it requires four weeks’ treatment, and where the lower court’s sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In full view of all other circumstances that are the conditions of sentencing specified in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, sex behavior, motive for the commission of the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, it cannot be deemed unfair because the lower court’s excessive punishment is unreasonable.
Meanwhile, the Defendant sought a reduction or exemption of community service hours, but in light of the criminal records, etc. above, the Defendant needs to have an opportunity to reflect his/her behavior and recover his/her sense of social responsibility through community service. Although the community service order for 80 hours may somewhat obstruct the Defendant’s living, the Defendant appears to be able to sufficiently implement such order within the scope that does not interfere with the Defendant’s living through consultation with the protective observation office after the conclusion of the judgment. There are no special circumstances for reduction or exemption.
3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.