The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing of the defendant) follows: (a) the defendant committed the instant crime by contingency while under the influence of alcohol; (b) the defendant recognized all the crimes in the course of investigation and trial; (c) the defendant committed the instant crime in the course of investigation and trial; (d) the defendant has not been punished by the victim by compensating the victims of the injury; (c) the defendant supported his spouse and elementary school students; and (d) the defendant supports his spouse and elementary school students in the instant case where a suspended sentence of imprisonment or heavier punishment becomes final and conclusive as a result of the instant case, it would be likely to interfere with working life; (d) the records of the Defendant’s crime of violence are 15 years prior to the date of the instant punishment; and (e) the defendant received the treatment from an oriental medical hospital to refrain from drinking; and (e) the defendant is administering the instant crime by medication

2. The fact that the defendant agreed with the victim of property damage at the investigation stage and agreed with the victim of property damage and expressed his/her intention not to prosecute the defendant, that the defendant recognized the crime from the police to the court, and that there is a misunderstanding of wrongs, and that the defendant's consciousness is seeking the wife, are favorable to the defendant.

However, the Defendant, while unilaterally trying to cut the drinking value at a main point other than several times, committed an act of damaging property by using violence, such as breathing the breath of the victim, who is the business owner, among others, and committing the crime of destroying property (which seems to have been sufficiently prosecuted as a crime of special assault or special injury). Accordingly, the Defendant arrested the offender as a current offender, and brought him into custody, and used an ambiguous violence against the police officer who intends to stop the disturbance at the end of the disturbance, and the nature of the crime is not severe.

In addition, the defendant has long been working for a relatively long time.