The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is against the defendant's act, and it is hard to say that it does not exercise violence in the future.

Since the victim continued to engage in an excessive behavior in the state of personnel in which he or she was able to take care of, the defendant was not able to participate in the harmony between him and the face of the victim.

There was no history of punishment heavier than a fine, and no crime was committed after around 2010.

The Defendant made efforts to reach an agreement.

The defendant is economically difficult to file an application for individual rehabilitation.

In light of this, the punishment sentenced by the court below (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.