The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the court below (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable when considering various circumstances against the defendant in light of the summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. The circumstances are favorable, such as the fact that the defendant is both aware of each of the crimes in this case, that the defendant committed each of the crimes in this case in a somewhat contingent and contingent manner, and that the victim D expressed his/her intent not to punish the defendant.

However, in this case, the Defendant committed each of the crimes in this case, which had been punished more than 10 times prior to this case, and had been punished more than 10 times, and the Defendant committed each of the crimes in this case during a repeated crime. In particular, the Defendant did not improve the tendency of violence while repeating such a series of crimes. In particular, the victim D did not keep the wall of violence, which is a dangerous object (3.5 cm in the head diameter, about 3.5 cm in the total length, about 35 cm in the victim's length), and the victim H did not reach an agreement so far. The Defendant committed each of the crimes in this case during the repeated crime, such as violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act, injury, and assault, which were punished more than 10 times in the number of times, and the victim did not keep up to 10 months in the number of times in prison, and even if it revealed that it continued to have the wall of violence, such as punishment guidelines, which requires more than 10 months in accordance with the Act on the punishment of violence, etc.

3. The lower court, taking into account the factors of sentencing favorable to the Defendant, imposed a statutory minimum (one year of imprisonment) at the end of discretionary mitigation, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances before and after the commission of the instant crime; and (b) comprehensively takes into account all the factors of sentencing indicated in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and conditions of sentencing