2. The judgment that the Defendant recognized the instant crime, the repair cost of the damaged article is relatively minor, and the public officials C and D are not punished by the Defendant. However, there are several criminal offenses committed by the Defendant during the period of the obstruction of performance of official duties, and in particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime due to the obstruction of business, etc., and multiple public officials suffered damage are disadvantageous.

There is no special relationship or change of circumstances that can be newly considered by this court, and in full view of the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.