2. Determination

A. The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, should respect the first instance sentencing judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

B. The lower court rendered a sentence by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant had the history of having been punished 11 times for violent crimes; (b) was sentenced to a suspended sentence for the same crime; (c) was committed again during the suspended period; (d) the Defendant did not reach an agreement even though the instant injury was serious; and (e) the tangible power exercised by the Defendant itself was not relatively dangerous; and (d) was determined by comprehensively taking into account the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sex behavior, environment, details of the

(c)

The grounds for the court below's improper sentencing alleged by the defendant are shown to have already taken into account in determining the punishment against the defendant, and the above sentencing conditions have been changed in the court below.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the defendant 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.