2. The following are the circumstances favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the mistake; (b) the damage caused by the crime of causing special property damage appears to be relatively minor; and (c) the Defendant agreed with the victimized police officers, and (d) deposited KRW 1.4 million each for the victim G and H.

On the other hand, the crime of this case committed by the defendant, who was driven without a license, was pursued by a passenger car, which is a dangerous object while the defendant escaped from the check, and obstructed the police officer's legitimate execution of duties concerning the non-examination of the police officer, and was destroyed by the damage of the Oral Seabs owned by the victims, and the nature of the crime of this case is not less than that of the victim. The defendant committed the crime of this case when he had already been subject to criminal punishment several times of the same crime, even though there was a history of criminal punishment for the same crime, and the crime of this case was committed by the court below in October, which was sentenced by the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Commission (one year to four years of imprisonment).

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, etc. as well as the various sentencing conditions shown in the instant records and arguments, it seems that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendant and the prosecutor’s assertion are without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.