폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(상습상해)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The fact that the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance recognized the crime of this case, and expressed his intention that the victim F would not want the punishment against the defendant to the investigation agency (the victim E withdrawn his intention not to punish the defendant in the court of original instance), and the fact that the victim's damage is somewhat minor due to the crime of this case, etc. are favorable to the sentencing.
However, considering the favorable circumstances as seen earlier, even if the court below sentenced the maximum sentence imposed by the court below, which was sentenced to discretionary mitigation, is too unreasonable, considering the following favorable conditions in light of the fact that the defendant had been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for the same kind of crime, and the motive, background, means and consequence of the crime, the relationship between the defendant and the victims, the relationship before and after the crime, the relationship between the defendant and the victims, the age, character and conduct, environment, and all other sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments.
Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.
On the other hand, the Defendant asserted only the initial unreasonable sentencing grounds, and the Defendant’s defense counsel presented a summary of the oral argument stating that the habitual nature of the instant crime is not recognized on October 14, 2015, when the Defendant’s defense counsel failed to submit the statement of grounds for appeal.
However, the above argument is not subject to the judgment of this court as a subsequent argument in the period for submitting the statement of grounds of appeal, and even after ex officio examination is conducted, in light of the defendant's respective criminal records, criminal records, frequency of crimes, and time interval between crimes, as stated in the judgment of the court below, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below.