2. It is reasonable to consider the Defendant favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized all the facts of crime and divided, and the degree of damage caused by the instant crime is not much serious.

However, in 2015, the defendant was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of assault, 2017, 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of bodily injury, 1 year of suspended execution, and 1 year of suspended execution despite the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case again at the same time after the end of each suspended execution period, and was subject to repeated measures such as agreement with the victim of special assault,

In full view of the fact that there is no evidence to see, that the victimized police officers did not receive a letter from the victimized police officers who interfere with the performance of official duties, and other various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the sentencing conditions specified in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed as unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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