The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unfair in sentencing (the defendant, at the first trial date of the trial of the first instance, withdrawn his argument other than unfair sentencing).

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the period of repeated assault, coercion, and assault, even though the Defendant had been subject to a criminal disposition more than 40 times including a criminal record and a criminal record, and determined a sentence by taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant’s agreement with all victims, such as the background of the crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, etc., in particular, the degree of injury inflicted on the victim in the event of the crime of bodily injury, and the degree of injury in the event of the crime of bodily injury, and the police officers dispatched to the Defendant in the case of bodily injury, in front of the police officers dispatched to the Defendant in the case of injury, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant’s agreement with all victims; and (b) the sentence was imposed by taking into account the circumstances that the Defendant

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

Considering the fact that the defendant recognized all crimes and is in profoundly against the defendant, is engaged in his occupation and has lived in good faith, and that the person desires the defendant's wife, the sentencing conditions as mentioned above have been significantly changed in the trial.

It is difficult to see the above sentencing conditions and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines [the scope of the final sentence due to the increase of multiple offenses: February to April, and April, and the scope of the recommended punishment: Class 1 (hereinafter referred to as violence): general injury area (2 months to one year), special mitigation factors (non-influence of punishment), special aggravation factors (referring to the same repeated offense), and the scope of the recommended punishment for Class 2 crimes (Obstruction of Duties). In light of the above sentencing conditions and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, the lower court’s punishment is too unfair because it is too unfair because it is considered unfair by comprehensively taking into account the type 1 (Obstruction of Duties), the mitigated area (1 month to August), and the mitigated area (a person who is specially mitigated: a person who is not subject to punishment).