The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not assault or injure the victims, the lower court convicted all of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, namely, ① the victim C consistently at the investigative agency and the lower court court’s trial when the Defendant was on the part of the victim C’s entrance to the victim C while the Defendant was on the part of the victim C, and the Defendant was on the part of the victim E in drinking while the Defendant was on the part of the victim E with the same e., as the victim E.

(2) The victim E prices the victim E, consistently with the investigative agency and the court of the court below, by consistently stating that the Defendant “the same guest in width” was “the same guest.”

(3) In light of the fact that the victim C was diagnosed by the dental clinic that needs to be treated for three weeks following the day of the case, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the victim inflicted an injury or assault on the victims as stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the defendant has old age to determine the unfair argument of sentencing.

However, considering the fact that the nature of the crime of this case is not good, the degree of injury suffered by the victim C is not weak, the damage recovery or agreement has not been reached with the victims up to the trial of the case, the balance of sentencing with the same kind of crime, the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

3. Conclusion.