2. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. It is recognized that the Defendant appears to have committed each of the crimes of this case, such as the fact that the Defendant repented and reflected the mistake.

Meanwhile, from March 12, 2020 to July 18, 2020, the Defendant committed multiple violent crimes, such as bodily injury, assault, special intimidation, and destruction of property, and larceny, etc. In particular, the Defendant committed a crime of 2020 ancient group 1180, which was prosecuted on May 29, 2020 and continued the trial, but committed an offense such as special intimidation, violence, and bodily injury, etc., and there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant who was unable to cover the strictness of judicial proceedings. The crime of damaging public goods in this case was committed by many citizens on the bus platform and route guidance used by the Defendant to impair its utility, and it is not appropriate that the Defendant did not delete a letter of omission, etc., by itself, after committing the crime of harming public goods in this case.

One of the arguments is that the defendant did not take measures of recovery, and the defendant did not endeavor to erase the shot in the front line, but did not properly support it, and the cost of KRW 27,060,00 as stated in the written estimate should be borne (No. 56 of the evidence record No. 2020 order No. 1180). The defendant argued that his act is against the rejection of passengers by urban bus engineers, etc., but it is intended to achieve the above purpose.