The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The sentence of the court below against the defendant (the imprisonment of two years, the suspension of execution of three years, the observation of protection, community service 200 hours, the lectures of violent therapy, 40 hours and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the sentence of the first instance court falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that the view of the appellate court is somewhat different from that of the first instance court (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal principles, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not vary from the first instance court’s judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the fact that the Defendant agreed with F as the person who was the victim of the special injury, special threat, special structure, obstruction of business, and special property damage, it is difficult to present the lower court’s sentencing.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no ground for appeal by the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.