In full view of the fact that illegal defendants recognize and reflect the crime, each of the crimes in this case was committed by contingent and the defendant did not use dangerous articles such as weapons at the time of the crime, the sentence of the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Although the Defendant alleged to the same effect as the grounds for appeal, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s above assertion on the grounds that in light of the circumstance leading up to each of the instant crimes, the Defendant’s speech and behavior, and the content of the statement in a reply to inquiry into the fact that “the Defendant appears not to have any significant influence on each of the instant crimes, and is presumed to have no other mental diagnosis,” the Defendant cannot be deemed to have reached a state where the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the instant crimes.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in a thorough manner with records, the above judgment of the court below is just.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

Each of the crimes of this case with regard to the wrongful argument of sentencing is an act of assaulting the victim's face face, who is aged 80 years old, and then causing bodily injury, such as a brush, which requires approximately four weeks of medical treatment to the victim for the purpose of retaliation, and thus is very poor.

In addition, the damage has not been restored to one victim.

Furthermore, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 8 months with prison labor due to the crime of injury.