2. The judgment shows the attitude of the defendant that the investigative agency, the court below, and the court of the trial, instead of mentioning the facts that the defendant committed the crime in this case. Although there are favorable circumstances such as the fact that the crime in this case seems to have been driven by a contingency under the influence of alcohol, the crime in this case was destroyed by the victim's face, etc., without any reason, and the crime in this case is bad, and the defendant has a record of being sentenced to criminal punishment several times due to the same crime. In particular, in 2012, the defendant has a record of being sentenced to criminal punishment due to the crime of causing property damage, and the punishment of the court below seems to have taken into account all the above favorable circumstances, and there is no change of circumstances that may differ from the judgment of the court below, and considering all the circumstances revealed in the records and arguments, such as the age, character, character and environment, occupation, career, career, developments, the crime in this case, the method, result, etc. before and after the crime in this case, it cannot be deemed unfair to punish the court below.

In particular, the defendant asserts that the time of the community service order should be reduced, but the defendant needs not only the community service order but also the time of the community service order of the court below seems to be adequate). 3. According to the conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.