The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the lower court (one-year imprisonment) is too unreasonable as to the gist of the grounds for appeal.

2. The fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflected, and that the record of criminal punishment is not confirmed, etc. is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case was committed on the ground that the victim, who was a fluor who was a fluor who had been working for a day duty at the construction site, and the victim's head was fluorddd by the fluor and got off the victim's head by getting off the right side by avoiding the victim's head, and the victim was fluording off the victim's right side by getting off the victim's head, and causing the victim's bodily injury. In light of the circumstances of the crime and the part of the assault, etc., it is not very good that the crime was committed, and that the degree of damage caused by the victim's bodily injury, such as the victim's flu

In full view of all the sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive, and circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to see that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable because it is too large, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

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.