2. The following facts are that the Defendant is deeply against the instant crime; that there was no penalty force exceeding the fine at the time of each of the instant crimes; that of the instant crimes, each of the instant crimes is in the concurrent relationship between the injury crime, etc. as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, which became final and conclusive, and the fact that the judgment should be rendered simultaneously and the equity should be considered under Article 39(1) of the Criminal

However, in light of the fact that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case again without being aware of the fact that he committed several previous crimes related to violence, while under the influence of alcohol, he assaulted the victim taxi engineer C, destroyed the black c, injured the police officer who was dispatched after receiving a report, and assaulted the police officer, and continued to commit the disturbance in the earth, the nature of the crime is not good, the victims did not reach agreement with the victims, and the victims want to be punished, and the circumstances that are favorable to the defendant are already favorable to the defendant at the court below, and there are no special circumstances or changes that may be considered in the sentencing newly after the sentence of the court below, and all other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is unfair because it is too unreasonable.

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 on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.