The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant was aware that he was aware of the victim’s satisfing, the Defendant did not have her her bat with her hand, as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete the course) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: ① on September 19, 2017, i.e.,: (a) reported the occurrence of the instant crime to the head of the Eup/Myeon/Dong Police Station before North Korea (Evidence No. 4-5 pages); (b) when the victim was investigated by the police on September 20, 2017, G did not state the fact that the Defendant had her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her was asked on September 21, 2017, to the effect that “the victim her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her, thereby making his her her her her her her her her her her her statement.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. In light of the fact that an unfair sentencing on the basis of statutory penalty is a discretionary judgment made within a reasonable and reasonable scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty, and in addition, in a case where there is no change in the conditions for sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.