The punishment of the court below (one year of suspended execution, one year of probation, and 40 hours of community service for six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and is against the defendant, that the defendant agreed with the victimized police officer, that the defendant did not have any criminal records or criminal records of the same kind, etc. are favorable factors for sentencing.

However, in order to establish legal order and eradicate the danger of public authority, there is a need to strictly punish the Defendant’s obstruction of performance of official duties, and the Defendant’s two-time violent crimes are disadvantageous elements for sentencing, and the lower court appears to have determined punishment by fully considering the circumstances favorable to the Defendant. The lower court did not change the circumstances that are favorable to the Defendant, and the court did not change the circumstances that would have different from the lower court’s judgment, as well as the circumstances leading up to the instant crime, the circumstances following the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal records, environment, etc., and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee [the mitigated area of obstruction of performance of official duties: 8 months or less], so it is not recognized that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.