Therefore, the rejection of an application for compensation order among the judgment of the court below is excluded from the scope of this court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six years and fines for six hundred thousand won) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

3. The circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant's judgment was made once in the trial and all of the crimes of this case are recognized and reflected, and that the victim C does not want the punishment of the defendant, etc.

However, there has been a significant history of punishment for the Defendant as a crime related to several times of violence, each of the crimes of this case is committed without being aware of the Defendant even during the period of repeated crime, and the degree of criticism is significant. The Defendant committed the same crime despite the fact that the Defendant had already been punished for the same kind of crime, and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act and the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) are not good. The crime of obstruction of performance of official duties of this case requires strict legal order and strict punishment in order to eradicate the state of the public authority. The degree of injury suffered by the victim of each of the crimes of this case is considerably significant, and up to now, the Defendant did not receive a letter from most of the victims of each of the crimes of this case, or did not reach an smooth agreement with the victims, and even considering the various factors of sentencing as shown in the oral proceedings of this case including the Defendant’s age and character, it is too too difficult that the sentencing of the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.