2. However, the defendant recognized all of the crimes in the trial and reflects it.

The degree of injury of the victim F is not very severe, but agreed with the above victim, and the compensation was made for the remainder of the damage to property.

At the time of the crime, the defendant was suffering from editing illness at the time of committing the crime, and the intention of the defendant to be hospitalized in the hospital after committing the crime is shown.

As such, there is a strong situation in which the defendant would be considered favorable to the defendant. However, the crime of this case leaves the scene without taking any measures against the victim due to the taxi in operation, leaving the scene as it is, and destroying the taxi of the witness and the cab of the victim who have been witnessed and sculed without any specific reason, and thus, the nature and circumstances of the crime are not good and the necessity of punishment is also high.

Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment on April 27, 201 and two years of suspension of execution on May 5, 2016 due to the crime of damaging public goods, etc., and the judgment was finalized on May 5, 2016, and was still under suspension of execution, and he/she again committed the crime of this case before the lapse of one month, and the same criminal record, such as property damage, is several times.

As such, there is a person who is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, in full view of all other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and method of committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too large. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

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