2. The judgment of this case is a case of assaulting the victim E with a motor vehicle, which is a dangerous object of the defendant. The risk inherent in the crime of this case is not high, and the victim appears to have obtained considerable mental impulses due to the crime of this case, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant did not make any effort to recover damage to the victim up to the trial. Furthermore, the defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime due to the crime of injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties, etc. Furthermore, in full view of the statutory punishment prescribed in the crime of this case, the sentencing precedent for the crime of this case, the sentencing precedent for the crime of this case, the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment is too unreasonable. Thus,

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

[However, in the application of the law of the court below, the "Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc." is obvious that it is a clerical error in the "former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (wholly amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014)", and thus, it shall be corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.