2. It is recognized that the Defendant had recognized all of each of the instant crimes for the first time in the trial, support for the aged parents, and suffering from mix uneasiness, etc.

However, each of the crimes of this case is highly poor in the quality of the crime that the defendant suffered from injury requiring medical treatment for five weeks and four weeks in consideration of the degree of injury of the victims, considering the influence of alcohol in a dormitory without any special reason. Nevertheless, the defendant's genuine act was close to self-defense committed by both of the crimes of this case. While the defendant argued that he was injured by himself due to his rashness due to his rashness during his rashion, there is no objective evidence to prove that the victims committed the crime of this case did not agree with any of the victims in the trial, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant made efforts to recover from damage in the record, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant made efforts to commit the crime of this case for the recovery of damage, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant was subject to criminal punishment for various crimes such as injury, injury, robbery, etc., the circumstances of the defendant's age and circumstances before and after the crime of this case, and the circumstances of the crime of this case, etc. are too high before and after the records.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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.