The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, committed an assault to the victims and inflicted an injury, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant otherwise erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (limited to four months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of probation, community service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The defendant alleged that the judgment of the court below is identical to this part of the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the judgment on the above argument in detail as to the "reasons for the crime of oil" part of the judgment below No. 4. The judgment of the court below is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, since the judgment of the court below is consistent with the records and closely examining the above judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law

3. In light of the fact that the sentencing on the argument of unfair sentencing is based on the statutory penalty that a discretionary decision is made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors attached to the sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, etc., it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance judgment, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Although the first instance judgment falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance judgment on the sole ground that

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). There are circumstances that the health team, the Defendant agreed with the victim K, and there is no history of criminal punishment against the Defendant. However, this is considered by the lower court in the process of determining the punishment.