The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the defendant's appeal: The punishment sentenced by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and reasonable 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 the first instance court that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of directness taken by our Criminal Procedure Act and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, it is reasonable to reverse the unfair judgment of the first instance court only in cases where it is deemed that the judgment of the first instance court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively considering the conditions of sentencing in the course of the first instance sentencing review and the sentencing criteria, etc., or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing as it is in full view of the materials newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing review.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, it is desirable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in the absence of such exceptional circumstances.

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

In light of the above legal principles, the circumstances alleged by the Defendant as an element of sentencing have already been set out in the hearing process of the lower court, and there is no particular change in the situation in the sentencing guidelines and the matters subject to the conditions of sentencing after the pronouncement of the lower judgment.

In addition to the circumstances indicated in the lower court’s reasons for sentencing, the lower court: (a) on December 18, 2017, the victim was sent to the hospital by the 119 rescue team on the following day after the Defendant’s report that the Defendant lost awareness of mental and disease, such as a stroke-mmmmm, and returned to the hospital by the 119 rescue team; (b) was hospitalized for about 10 days after the discharge; and (c) was hospitalized for approximately 10 days after the discharge.