The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A summary of the lower judgment: (a) the Defendant threatened the victim C (n, 59 years of age), and (b) interfere with the operation of the restaurant by force by putting his/her pedals against customers at the restaurant operated by the said victim C; (c) while the victim F (n, South and 53 years of age) was living together with the women living together in the past, he/she was fluencing the victim with a knife knife, knife at night, and knife the victim’s breast part, and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife, and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

(Attempted Murder) The charge was prosecuted, and the lower court convicted the Defendant of all the charges, and sentenced the Defendant to five years of imprisonment and one knife confiscation.

B. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the defendant) is too unreasonable that the above imprisonment (five years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is an unreasonable sentencing case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

In cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, or the sentencing of the original judgment does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, in a case where it is deemed that the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria that are the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing process, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing judgment of the court below in full view of the materials newly discovered in the appellate court’s sentencing process, the appellate court shall reverse the unfair judgment of the court below.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (B)

Judgment

1. A favorable defendant has been under investigation authority since then.