2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). It is recognized that: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects his or her mistake; (b) the degree of damage suffered by the victimized police officer is not relatively more severe; and (c) the Defendant’s senior figures want to leave the Defendant’s seat.

However, the crime of this case was committed under the influence of alcohol by the Defendant, despite the police officer's recommendation to return home who was sent to the police officer after receiving a report at the main point of view, the nature of the crime is not good in light of the background and method of the crime. In the case of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, it is necessary to establish the state's legal order and to eradicate the light of public authority, and there is a history of criminal punishment for 10 times as well as there has already been a history of criminal punishment for the crime of violence, and the defendant has already been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for the same crime, as well as several violence crimes have been committed during the period of the suspended sentence, and was committed as "no prosecution right" through an agreement. In light of the criminal history of the Defendant and the attitude of the crime of this case, there seems to be considerable possibility of recidivism by the Defendant, and there is no special circumstance to newly consider the Defendant's age, character and behavior, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, it cannot be deemed unfair.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is reasonable.