The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the damages caused by each of the instant crimes are relatively minor, and the victims have not been punished by the Defendant.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes during the period of repeated crime due to the same crime; (b) the Defendant had been punished for violence or similar crimes several times including punishment; and (c) the Defendant’s age, environment, sex behavior, motive for the commission of the crime, circumstances before and after the commission of the crime; and (d) legal attitude, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable and unreasonable.

The scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing guidelines is two months to one year (the mitigated element: minor injury (type 1, 4), penalty non-won, and aggravated element): in the case of a crime of injury, the scope of the recommended punishment on the sentencing guidelines is six months to one year and six months (the mitigated element: the person who is not punishable and aggravated element: the same repeated element: the person who is not punishable and aggravated element) in the basic area in the case of a crime of interference with the business, and six months (the lowest limit of the sentence scope of the crime of interference with the basic duties) to two years (the minimum of the sentence scope of the crime of interference with the basic duties) as a result of multiple crimes.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.