A. In light of the fact that the Defendant recognized the mistake of the Defendant, there is no record of criminal punishment, and the Defendant imposed a physical punishment in the course of punishing a victim who could not be concentrated in the class, and that the instant crime was not committed for the purpose of undermining the victim, etc., the sentence of the lower court, which sentenced the Defendant to the suspension of the execution of 2 years and 40 hours in October, is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant, an instructor of a driving school, uses continuous violence against a victim under his/her protection and supervision, and that the victim and his/her parents wished to punish the Defendant, the crime of this case by the public prosecutor is unfair because the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible.

2. The crime of this case is deemed to have been committed by the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was taking a class at a private teaching institute and was unable to mislead the victim by taking advantage of the tools, such as plastic, etc., for each class time, and habitually abused and injured the victim. The crime of this case seems to have considerably high level of suffering and mental shock, and the victim and his parents were punished. Meanwhile, the Defendant was punished by the victim and his parents. Meanwhile, there are other circumstances that can be considered as having committed the crime of this case in the course of raising the victim who is the student at the private teaching institute, and there is no history of criminal punishment. In full view of all the circumstances in the records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be reasonable, and it is too heavy or excessive, by taking account of the following factors: the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, degree of damage, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.