2. It is recognized that the Defendant made a confession of all the crimes and divided his mistake, and that the victim E,J andO agreed with the victim E,J andO.

However, in light of violent crimes, etc., the Defendant has been sentenced to a fine for a total period of time, a suspended sentence, and the form, method, frequency, etc. of each of the crimes of this case, the nature of the crime is very bad and bad, the injury is serious, the victim F, M, and N did not agree with the court below, and there is no change of circumstances that may otherwise determine the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the court below’s punishment is unfair because it is too excessive.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 2(2)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act). However, the judgment of the court below was added to “the choice of imprisonment,” of the pertinent Article of the Act on the Crimes in which the law is applicable and of the choice of punishment 1. Article 2(2)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016). As such, it is obvious that the Defendant’s appeal is a clerical error in the “Article 2(2) and (1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act”, it is corrected to ex officio delete and correct it pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulation on the Criminal Procedure.