2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance 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 Defendant is due to a circumstance that is likely to be considered in the course of the instant crime, as the victim D and his/her conduct and vision led to an accident, facing the face of the damaged person during the course of the instant crime.

However, the injured party suffered from the heat requiring approximately three weeks of medical treatment in line with the part of the wall that the accused had left, and the accused did not agree with the injured party.

In addition, when comprehensively considering the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, family relationship, health condition, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is done within the reasonable scope of discretion and is not hot.

3. Accordingly, 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.