(2) In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it. Although the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the judgment of the first instance court on the grounds that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court, to refrain from rendering a sentence that does not differ from the judgment of the first instance court on the grounds that it is somewhat different from the opinion of the appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had the record of having been sentenced several times of punishment, including imprisonment, due to the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.

The defendant exercised the direct tangible power of police officers by tearing a police officer's breath, and seems to have taken severe bath in the process.

In full view of the nature of the crime of this case and the risk of recidivism of the defendant, it is inevitable to strictly punish the defendant who repeats the same mistake.

The lower court is not recognized to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances that the Defendant asserted as the grounds for appeal, including the circumstances alleged in the grounds for appeal, and there was no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court, on the grounds that there was no change in the conditions of sentencing as compared to the records and arguments of the instant case, since the lower court was determined by fully considering the circumstances that the Defendant alleged as the grounds

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 appeal is without merit.