2. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the first instance court, if there is no change in the sentencing conditions, 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). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of various circumstances against the Defendant, such as: (a) the confession and reflectiveness of the Defendant; (b) the fact that there was no record of punishment beyond fines; (c) the victim paid a reasonable amount of criminal agreement to the victim; and (d) the fact that the victim did not want to be punished against the Defendant by paying a reasonable amount of criminal agreement; (b) the injury suffered by the victim is more serious and serious; and (c) there is concern that considerable decrease in

The judgment below

Since then, there is no new circumstance to change the sentence of the court below in the trial court, according to the records, the victim first assaults the defendant, and the defendant also sustained the injury. However, even if such circumstance and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, are considered, it does not seem that the sentencing of the court below is too large to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.