2. The following facts are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant did not want the Defendant’s punishment under an agreement with E, F, and H (police officers), the victims of the crime of injury; (c) the victimized police officers (including H) did not want the Defendant’s punishment; and (d) deposited KRW 150,000 as a reward for the change of damage to public goods.

On the other hand, each of the crimes of this case committed a crime of this case against the defendant, even though the defendant committed a crime similar to this case (the name of a crime, interference with the performance of official duties, and damage to public goods) and interfered with the performance of official duties by assaulting police officers dispatched to cope with such crime, and the crime of this case was committed with significant degree of illegality by H, a police officer, who was dispatched in the course of the crime of this case, and the defendant committed a crime of this case, again committed a crime of this case disadvantageous to the defendant (the Incheon District Court Decision 2013Ma8276 delivered on April 9, 2014), excluding the disposition of juvenile protective disposition (the case of juvenile protective disposition of this case 10) or suspension of indictment (the case of juvenile protective disposition of this case 10 times in light of investigation experience).

Considering the above circumstances and other circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, occupation and environment, and motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable for the lower court’s punishment to be too unreasonable.

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.