2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant are recognized, such as the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant committed the instant crime by contingency under the influence of alcohol.

However, the crime of this case is reasonable to respect the defendant's desire in the restaurant, etc. of victims without any particular reason, and interferes with the victims' work by force by avoiding disturbance. In light of the frequency of the crime and the contents of the crime, etc., the criminal liability is heavy; the defendant did not agree with the victims; the defendant has been subject to criminal punishment several times of the same crime; the defendant has the unique area of the first deliberation as to the determination of the punishment in our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, has no change in the conditions of the sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first sentencing does not go beyond the reasonable scope of the discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The favorable circumstances of the above recognized defendant do not correspond to changes in circumstances that could change the sentence of the court below after the sentence of the court below, and it does not seem that the court below's unfair punishment against the defendant is too unreasonable.

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