The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Although the petition of appeal filed by the Defendant on November 23, 2015, which was submitted by the Defendant’s defense counsel, states that the Defendant was dissatisfied with the lower judgment and filed an appeal. However, the reason for appeal, which was withdrawn on December 18, 2015 by the national defense counsel appointed in the first instance court, merely refers to “unfair sentencing” as the reason for appeal, and only the Defendant’s statement of the reason for appeal withdrawn on December 30, 2015, also reflects the mistake that the Defendant committed.

In that sense, the reason for appeal (Supplementary) sent out on March 9, 2016 by the defendant's private defense counsel (hereinafter "defense counsel") appointed at the trial court (hereinafter "defense counsel") stated that the victim was drinking alcohol, but the victim was not able to resist, and the defense counsel was not unjust in sentencing for reasons of appeal at the first trial date of the trial court of the first instance.

Even if a legal assertion of misunderstanding the legal doctrine that did not reach a legally impossible state of resistance was stated to the effect that it was well-grounded on the ground of ex officio reversal.

The defense counsel's assertion that the injured party did not reach a state of resistance cannot serve as a legitimate ground for appeal because it was submitted after the deadline for submitting the appeal was too excessive. In addition, the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the injured party flicked with the accused, etc. from March 21, 2015, around 16:19 on the same day, from March 21, 2015, the injured party flicked with the defendant, etc., and 16:19 on the same day.

The statement “” (Evidence No. 174 pages), 3.