The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the court below's imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of the previous conviction of a fine that the Defendant had received, and the case of the decision-making, the Defendant had been punished for committing an act of violence, such as taking a bath when drinking only. The instant case also commits the same content.

In addition, the defendant committed each of the crimes of this case during the period of probation (at present, the period of probation has expired), and as to the insult and bodily injury of the victim on June 3, 2019, the defendant took care of the victim again without any counter-refluence, even after being investigated by an investigative agency, and did not receive any suspicion from the victim.

In light of the above circumstances, even if considering that the defendant's mistake is against his own wrong and is expected not to repeat a crime through alcohol dependence treatment in the future, it is judged that it is necessary to keep the defendant under quarantine from society for a considerable period of time, and have the time to stop drinking and to keep the defendant from serious reflectiveness. Thus, it is inevitable to sentence the defendant's sentence.

In addition, in full view of all circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the records of the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court is not heavy.

3. Therefore, 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, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, ex officio and the application of the judgment of the court below

1. The phrase “(in the case of Defendant A, to the extent that the sum of the long-term punishments of the above crimes is added)” is added at the end of the middle of concurrent crimes.