2. The crime of this case is a circumstance unfavorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant, at the principal place, was making a report on his or her behavior against a female-friendly group, and the responsibility for committing the crime is not less strict punishment against the crime of interference with duties, such as assault, intimidation, etc. against a police officer who performs his or her duties by taking advantage of his or her uniform uniform, the defendant again commits the crime of this case during the suspension of execution due to violent crimes, and the defendant has served seven times of punishment including one time of the suspended execution due to identical crimes.

On the other hand, the following are the circumstances: (a) the Defendant reflects the instant crime; (b) the degree of assault or intimidation by the Defendant is relatively relatively somewhat weak; (c) the Defendant did not result in injury to the victimized police officer; (d) the Defendant deposited a certain amount to recover the damage of the victimized police officer; (c) the police officer submitted a written application for carbon for the Defendant; (d) the Defendant appears to have been unable to be born at a normal home; (e) the Defendant appears to have been growing up in an unborn environment; and (e) the Defendant appears to have been taking part in alcohol treatment and counseling with the aid of observation office from around September 2015.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, family relationship, occupation, etc., and the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee do not have legal binding force (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012). In full view of the aforementioned circumstances, the sentence of the lower court is individual circumstances in specific cases.