2. The lower court determined that the Defendant was punished by a fine or a suspended sentence of imprisonment for ten times due to a crime of interference with the performance of official duties, damage to property, etc., including that the Defendant was punished four times as a result of interference with the performance of duties, and that the Defendant was punished by a suspended sentence of imprisonment for the same reason, despite the Defendant being punished by a fine, the Defendant committed the instant crime at another time despite the commission of a fine by putting the same crime during the suspended sentence period due to the same crime, and that the Defendant was unable to receive a letter from the injured party, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendant

In full view of the fact that there is no change in circumstances to change the sentencing of the lower court, other than the flexible and unfavorable circumstances taken into account by the lower court, and all other conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background leading up to the commission of the crime, means and consequence, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it cannot be deemed unfair to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion or maintain it as it is (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Accordingly, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

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