Defendant

The appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) of the original judgment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is reasonable to take into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s mistake reflects the Defendant’s depth; (b) the victim did not want the Defendant’s punishment; (c) the victim and the Defendant wishing to have a preference against the Defendant several times; (d) the long-term detention of the Defendant is not good; and (e) the Defendant appears to inflict pain on the victim with disability.

However, there is no good quality of the crime of this case and the risk of the crime is considerably high, and the defendant has been punished several times for the same type of crime. Furthermore, the defendant committed the crime of this case since he was subject to suspended sentence for the same kind of crime even though he was under the first place of suspended sentence for the victim, it is difficult to expect edification according to his voluntary will, the victim is a disabled person, the possibility of recidivism of the victim is considerably high, and the defendant's difficulty in living against the victim is considered only, and there are other unfavorable circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence, circumstances after the crime of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Commission as to the crime of this case, and the crime of this case falls under the scope of recommended sentence, habitual crime, injury, repeated crime, special injury, injury, special punishment (specific injury, injury to the victim), special punishment, sentence of suspended sentence (specific punishment), special injury, sentence of imprisonment for a limited term of more than three years) years, sentence scope of punishment (specific punishment) and punishment).