The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant, as stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article 2-2 of the decision of the court below, has threatened the victim E at the time and place, the Defendant did not, at that time, threaten or assault the said victim for the purpose of retaliation against the provision of the proviso of investigation, such as accusation or accusation, in relation to his criminal investigation or trial, for the purpose of retaliation against the submission of a statement, testimony or data.

Nevertheless, the court below, however, abused and assaulted the above victim for the purpose of retaliation by the defendant.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant asserted that the lower court’s determination is identical to the assertion of mistake as to the above facts, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant stated detailed circumstances in the 3rd or 4th or 13th or above judgment.

We affirm the judgment of the court below as just in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the court below and closely compared with the evidence examined.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The Defendant, instead of being aware of the facts pertaining to each of the instant crimes, contradicts the sentencing doctrine.

The degree of injury inflicted by the defendant to the victim C and the degree of violence inflicted on the victim E is not more severe.

These circumstances can be considered in favor of the defendant.

On the other hand, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment on April 9, 2015 for the crime of assaulting the victim E with shampoo and shamp, which is a dangerous object, and committed assaulting the victim E within the short period, despite the completion of the execution of the sentence on October 7, 2015.

In addition, the defendant has a bad faith as a problem of the collection of wave.