2. Each of the crimes of this case is found to be a disadvantageous sentencing factor or objective and neutral sentencing factor, such as: (a) the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, inflicted an injury on the victim C by leaving the cafeteria in a restaurant operated by the victims; and (b) the victim’s injury with respect to reporting the crime two times or more; and (c) there was a record of being punished ten times since 1991 or by a fine; and (d) the number of times the Defendant was punished for violent crimes, such as violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, intimidation, injury, business obstruction, etc., among them, five times or more; and (e) the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case.

However, it is also recognized that there are more favorable sentencing factors or objective and neutral sentencing factors such as the defendant's acknowledgement of his mistake and reflects in depth, the degree of injury suffered by the victim C is not serious, the degree of mental disorder is not determined to the extent of mental disorder, but it seems to have reached a criminal act with contingent impulses in the state of under the influence of alcohol and there are no circumstances considering the circumstances.

The above sentencing factors and sentencing guidelines, the defendant's age, health status, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive and background leading to the crime of this case, the means and consequence of the crime, various circumstances revealed in the arguments, such as circumstances after the crime, the statutory punishment for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (limited to imprisonment of not less than one year), modern penal purposes, and criminal policy, are clear that the probation is a major punishment, and the community service order, which is a punishment added to the principal sentence, is expected to improve the defendant's personality and behavior in the future.