2. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable conditions for the Defendant.

The circumstances alleged by the defendant as the reasons for appeal, such as the reflection of the nature of the appeal, are considered in the sentencing process of the court below.

The crime of this case is committed in the following parts of the victim's head and the second part of the victim's body due to a minor disease, and even if the degree of injury actually suffered by the victim is relatively minor, the nature of the crime is not very good.

Furthermore, the punishment for six months sentenced by the court below is derived from discretionary mitigation of one year, which is the lowest statutory penalty for special injury crimes.

In addition, considering comprehensively the sentencing conditions, such as the character, conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc. as shown in the argument of the court below and the party hearing, there are changes in circumstances that have been agreed with the victim during the trial.

Even if the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.