A. Although the Defendant did not assault the Victim J, a driver of a motor vehicle in operation, the lower court convicted him/her of this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the court below to have comprehensively taken into account the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding factual misunderstanding, the victim is sufficiently aware of the fact that the defendant committed assault against the victim J, who is a driver of a vehicle in operation, as stated in the judgment of the court below, in light of the position of the defendant at the time from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and the time when the victim was assaulted by the defendant or his father

B. It is recognized that the amount of damage caused by the instant fraud crime is relatively minor, and that the Defendant agreed with some victims, etc.

However, in light of the fact that the crime of this case is not good, that the defendant committed the crime of this case again during the period of suspension of the execution of the same crime even though he had been tried by several times, and that the defendant did not agree with the remaining victims until the trial of the case, and the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing specified in the argument of this case such as the circumstance after the crime of this case are too unreasonable, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

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