The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment) by the lower court (e., six months) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data to the Defendant in the trial, and the lower court did not appear to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because the lower court’s sentencing is too too unreasonable even when comprehensively considering the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, including various circumstances considered in sentencing.

In particular, the lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the degree of violence of the Defendant, the degree of injury of the victim, and the fact that the Defendant had been punished several times for the same kind of crime; and (b) the fact that the Defendant committed a second offense even during the period of suspension of execution due to a special injury, in particular, considering the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects it; and (c) the fact that the victim was smoothly unable to punish the victim by mutual consent with the victim; and (d) the circumstance favorable to the sentencing claimed by the Defendant and his defense counsel in the

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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