The appeal is dismissed.

The sentence of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The fact that the defendant led to the crime of this case and is in depth divided, that the defendant agreed with the victim of the crime of causing property damage, and that the damage caused by the crime of this case is not serious, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

However, without any particular reason, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant against female drivers while breathing property while taking a bath against female drivers and destroying property, thereby obstructing the performance of official duties against the police officers who collisioned upon receiving a report, and thus the nature of the crime is not good. In the past, the Defendant had been sentenced to punishment due to obstruction of performance of official duties, etc., and in particular, the crime of this case was committed on January 3, 2013 by not later than the expiration of the parole period, and in full view of all the sentencing conditions such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court is unreasonable.

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

(However, among the criminal records of the judgment of the court below, the term "three years and six months of imprisonment" shall be corrected to "three years and six months of imprisonment".