2. The fact that the victims of the instant crime appear to have relatively little damage due to the instant crime, etc., is favorable to the Defendant.

However, in full view of the fact that the defendant had been punished several times for the same crime in the past, and that the defendant continued to commit the same crime even after being arrested as a flagrant offender several times during the commission of each of the crimes in this case, and was released after being investigated, and that the defendant committed the crime in this case, and that the defendant took a bath to the victimJ demanding the drinking value without being limited to the crime in this case, thereby obstructing the restaurant business by avoiding disturbance, and that the victims' losses are still deemed not to have been properly recovered, and all of the sentencing conditions in the arguments in this case, including the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, and family relationship, it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

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