2. The lower court, under the circumstances that the Defendant had the same record of obstructing the Defendant’s business, 6 times the performance of official duties, 25 times the past record of the crime, including the fact that the Defendant again committed the instant crime during the same repeated crime period, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant’s agreement with the victim of the obstruction of business and the damage of property, and determined a sentence by taking into account the following factors: the Defendant’s criminal history, age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant records and arguments.

The grounds for the improper sentencing alleged by the defendant (the fact that the defendant is against the crime of this case, the degree of interference with the execution of official duties is relatively minor in the case of interference with the execution of official duties, and the victim of the crime of interference with the performance of duties and damage to property) appear to have been sufficiently considered in determining the punishment against the defendant, and the above sentencing conditions have been changed in the trial.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, the sentence of the court below is determined to be reasonable within the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

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.