The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding the defendant's frying of facts falls under the frying of the beer's disease before the victim, but the victim was not the victim, but merely the beer's disease was put on the floor and it does not constitute violence.

B. Even if a person is guilty of an unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not constitute an assault on the ground of the same reasons as the Defendant stated in detail in the judgment of the lower court, rather than having had a beer and beer with a beer and beer with the floor towards the floor, and recognized the fact that the Defendant had a beer and beer with the beer and beer with the victim, and convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

Examining records compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is justified.

In addition, even if the defendant did not directly have had beer diseases as argued by the defendant, but had been on the floor towards the side of the victim, such acts also constitute violence in light of the circumstances at the time. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not acceptable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Although there are favorable circumstances, such as the victim’s consent to the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the victim’s punishment during the period of repeated crime, and the Defendant’s history of punishment for multiple violent crimes in the past, and the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, motive and circumstance of the instant crime, means and consequence of the instant crime, and other various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, such as the circumstances before and after the instant crime cannot be deemed unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment.