(A) On the contrary, the lower court’s sentencing is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

(2) The Defendant, who was punished 23 times due to the crime of this case, such as fraud, assault, injury, property damage, interference with business, etc., committed the crime of this case, committed the crime of this case by assaulting the victim for the purpose of retaliation against the report to the police, and by assaulting the victim for the purpose of retaliation against the crime of reported to the police, and committing the act of assaulting the customers in other packing horses without any special reason, and it is deemed that the nature of the crime and the crime of this case are very bad.

The victims did not reach an agreement at all.

The merchants who observed the crime of this case committed by the defendant were able to make a statement as a witness because of the retaliation of the defendant.

In light of this point, it is necessary for the defendant to make a strict punishment corresponding to his criminal liability.

However, in full view of the circumstances such as (1) the value of the food that he was infinite and the degree of assault is relatively minor, and (2) the defendant is the disabled of class 4 without delay and seems dependent on alcohol due to lack of jobs and absence of any family member who is infinite, and (3) the defendant's act of committing the instant crime under the influence of alcohol seems to have been committed contingently under the influence of alcohol, and (4) the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, family relation, etc., the sentencing of the court below cannot be deemed as being too heavy or unreasonable compared to the degree of his act and responsibility.

3. The appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.