2. The fact that the Defendant recognized all of the instant crime is favorable to the Defendant.

However, each of the crimes of this case is normal circumstances that the defendant committed assault or bodily injury to the elderly victims in the former vehicle without any special reason, and the method of the crime or the quality of the crime is extremely poor, the degree of damage suffered by the victim due to the defendant's assault in the case of the victim D, and the defendant did not agree with the victims or make any effort to recover from damage even though he suffered bodily injury in the case of the victim D, and the defendant has been punished several times for the same violent crimes of the same kind. In particular, after having been sentenced to one year for the crime of injury on August 10, 2012 and completed the execution of the above punishment on June 27, 2013, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year for the crime of injury on the same occasion, which is highly likely to be subject to criticism again, even though he had an obstacle to the adjustment of appraisal, and such disability does not have any influence on the crime, but it does not have received medical treatment in the spirit and mind.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, health condition, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and various sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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