2. The fact that the defendant's decision on the grounds for appeal is likely to not repeat again while opposing his fault; that the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case in a situation where the relationship with his spouse and children is aggravated while divorced with his former spouse and is in an emotional conflict with each other; that the crime of this case is committed by assaulting the victim first; that the degree of damage is not relatively more severe; that there is no penalty power exceeding the defendant; that there is no penalty power exceeding the fine for the defendant; that there are some circumstances that can be taken into account in the living environment of the defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case committed by the defendant without permission or damages a vehicle in the former spouse's residence after the defendant divorced from the former spouse, and by assaulting a child found to resisting the situation, crime quality, and result are not good. The physical and mental shock of the victims who were suffering from the crime of this case, which led to the crime of this case, seems to have increased, and the damage was not recovered, and even if there was a history of punishment for the same crime of violence, the defendant was committed again against the defendant.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be excessively unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.