The punishment of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment, and the capital forfeiture No. 1) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and the degree of injury of the victim H is not serious, etc. are favorable factors for sentencing.

However, it is an unfavorable sentencing factor, such as the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime within the repeated crime period, the victims did not recover damage, and the victims were punished against the Defendant.

In addition, the circumstances of the instant crime, various sentencing data shown in the arguments, such as the background of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime, age, character and conduct of the accused, and environment, and the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Commission (two to seven years), and the first concurrent crime: Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the scope of recommending punishment); Violation of the first category (general habitual and repeated crime) (the scope of recommending punishment); Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the scope of recommending punishment); Violation of the Punishment, etc. of Violence Act (the determination of types) [the determination of types]; Violation of the Punishment of Violence Act (the injury, deadly Injury, Bodily Injury, Specific Injury] among habitual injury, and special injury (the scope of recommending punishment] basic area; imprisonment of two years to four years; and the scope of punishment recommended according to the standards for handling multiple crimes (the upper limit of punishment in accordance with the basic sentencing range) is not recognized to include the upper limit of punishment of 1/21/3).

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.