The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below sentenced the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and recognized his mistake, and the crime of this case appears to have somewhat contingently reduced the defendant's drinking while drinking, and the defendant is the most likely to support his or her poor wife, four children, and his or her dependants, and the fact that the defendant seems to have difficulty in economic situations as a recipient of basic living benefits is considered as circumstances.

However, the Defendant committed a crime of assaulting a taxi engineer in around 201, which was in operation before the instant crime in around 201, and assaulting a taxi engineer who gets involved in the instant crime, and was punished by a fine of 2 million won due to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes). The Defendant had a record of being punished several times due to the instant crime, such as violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Violence and Injury, etc., the degree of injury inflicted on the victim due to the instant crime is very serious, and there was a possibility that the victim might have a disability on the inverte part of the victim, despite the fact that no agreement has been reached between the Defendant and the victim, and taking into account the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, degree of damage, Defendant’s age, character and behavior, home environment, etc., the Defendant’s punishment imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit.

However, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the judgment of the court below is ex officio, and the judgment of the court below on the criminal facts of January 17.