The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court dismissed the public prosecution regarding assault against the Defendant among the facts charged in the instant case, and convicted the Defendant of the remainder of the facts charged. Since the dismissal of the public prosecution for which the prosecutor did not appeal as the Defendant appealed only on the guilty part is separate and finalized as the period of appeal expires, the lower court shall be tried only on the guilty part among the lower judgment.

2. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. The determination of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element favorable to sentencing in the first instance trial, such as the fact that the injured party did not want the punishment against the Defendant, etc., were revealed in the hearing process of the lower court, and most of the circumstances asserted by the Defendant as an element favorable to sentencing were removed, and there is no particular change in the situation in the sentencing guidelines with the matters subject to sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower judgment.

(b) other.