2. It is true that there are circumstances such as the fact that there is no history of crime exceeding a fine on the Defendant’s judgment, the Defendant recognized all of his mistake and reflects the Defendant’s admission and outpatient treatment due to alcohol dependence from April 2008, and each of the instant crimes appears to be a criminal act committed in the state of alcohol.

① However, there have been eight or more criminal records with regard to the Defendant, and this is not good for the Defendant to commit so-called aggressive violence, such as destroying another’s property or causing injury to another’s property while under the influence of alcohol. ② In the case of each of the instant crimes, it is necessary to give a strong warning to the Defendant so that he/she does not commit any crime again through strict punishment because the form of an act similar to the above criminal records is repeated even in the case of the instant crimes.

Although there are some victims who expressed their intention that they do not want to punish the defendant, they seem not to have been restored to the victims, and many victims or witnesses seem to have not been able to make a statement about the defendant's crime because of the retaliation of the defendant.

In addition, considering all the factors of sentencing, such as the character and conduct of the defendant, motive and method of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., all the factors of sentencing revealed in the trial process of this case are considered, and this case is not subject to the sentencing criteria.

It cannot be said that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable because the sentence imposed by the defendant is too large.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so ordered.