2. The lower court rendered the above sentence, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the victim and witness consistently made a statement about the Defendant’s crime, but they did not reflect on the denial of the crime; (b) the degree of injury inflicted by the Defendant was serious; and (c) the victim’s failure to recover from damage led to the failure to recover the damage, thereby barring the Defendant’s strict punishment.

In addition to the circumstances considered by the court below, the court below took into account the fact that the defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim up to the depth of the party, and the defendant seems to have committed a mistake in the first instance, and took into account the fact that the defendant is a beneficiary under the National Basic Living Security Act, respectively.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, health, circumstances leading to the commission of a crime, means and result, scale of a crime and circumstances after a crime, etc., which can be known through records and pleadings, the sentence sentenced by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment of sentencing exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance thereof is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the sentence imposed by the lower court is unfair because it is too unreasonable as the Defendant alleged.

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