2. Determination is a normal situation that the defendant's use of violence against a driver on a bus, brush in a bus, and assaulted a police officer dispatched to 112 report, and thus, the case of each of the crimes of this case may cause harm to the safety of the passengers on board the vehicle, and thus, it is necessary to strictly punish the crime. The crime of assault committed by a driver may cause harm to the safety of the passengers on board the vehicle. As such, the defendant's crime of interference with the defendant's business, which causes inconvenience to bus passengers, such as the use of considerable anxiety and other transportation, the defendant's failure to receive a letter of use by the victimized police officer, and the defendant's criminal records, including imprisonment with prison labor, are many.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant reflects the wrong, that the damaged bus engineer who received the defendant's apology at the investigation stage does not want to be punished against the defendant, and that the defendant does not have any criminal power related to violence is favorable.

In full view of such circumstances and all of the sentencing conditions as shown in the instant argument and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the defendant's appeal is groundless.