Although the defendant did not participate in a emerculation and did an excessive act, he did not commit a crime in the future, he did not commit a crime, and did so in the future, and he did not drink, and did so, he did not go to the hospital treatment.

In light of this, the punishment sentenced by the court below (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment as the new sentencing materials have not been submitted at the trial court. In full view of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the record of the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too remote, and thus, cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.

However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the term "the application of the statutes in the judgment of the court below" shall be corrected to "the imprisonment choice" ex officio.