2. The fact that the judgment of the defendant led to the confession of the facts constituting the crime of this case, the victims do not want the punishment of the defendant, and the fact that it does not cause any traffic accident in relation to the driving without the permission of this case is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, the victim of the crime of bodily injury on February 15, 2014 suffered injuries, including approximately five weeks of medical treatment, such as a dyp fuss, and on October 8, 2015, the victim of the crime of bodily injury suffered injuries, such as the lag and fals, which require approximately six weeks of medical treatment. The victims suffered significant injury, and the victim was punished for violent crimes, there are many records of punishment, and the defendant had been sentenced to a fine due to non-licenseless driving, despite the fact that the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case, even though he was under the period of probation, and there is no special change in the trial, and there is no other circumstance that the probation is still under way, and there is no other reason that the defendant's age, environment, sex, motive for the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime, and the sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Committee, it cannot be deemed that the court below's punishment is too unfair.

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 by the court below (Provided, That in the application of the law of the court below, the term “the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act” is a mistake of “the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014)” and thus, it is obvious that it is an error of “the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act,” and thus, it is to be corrected ex officio pursuant to Article