2. Determination of the Defendant recognized the instant crime and recognized the circumstances in which the victimized police officer wanted to take the Defendant’s seat.

Even though the defendant has no record of being punished for the same crime, and the crime of this case seems to be somewhat contingent, it can be considered as a factor of sentencing favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, such as the instant case, is likely to obstruct legitimate enforcement of the law and encourage the light of public authority, and thus, it is necessary to strictly cope therewith.

The lower court has already determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the above factors favorable to the Defendant, and there is no change in sentencing conditions that may be specially considered in the trial compared with the lower court.

In addition, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal records, motive and background leading to the instant crime, degree of exercise of force against the victimized police officers, circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is only within the reasonable scope of discretion, and it is not deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the defendant's appeal is without merit.