2. The circumstances are favorable to the Defendant, such as the following: (a) the Defendant reflects his criminal act; (b) the Defendant appears to have reached a contingent crime in a large amount of drinking alcohol; and (c) the Defendant possessed dangerous objects but did not directly exercise the force to police officers; (b) the Defendant did not directly exercise the force to police officers.

On the other hand, the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he was sentenced to a fine by taking advantage of the crime that destroyed a vehicle parked around the district during the period of suspension of execution due to the Defendant’s act of carrying dangerous articles, and the nature of such crime is very poor. The instant crime is committed by using kitchen knife, and thus, in light of the method of crime, the risk is very high, and the obstruction of the performance of public duties is a crime that impairs the function of the State by nullifying a legitimate exercise of public authority, and thus, requires strict punishment to establish a legal order is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other circumstances after the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sex, family relation, environment, occupation, and other conditions for sentencing as shown in the arguments and arguments, since the sentence imposed by the lower court is too heavy or it does not seem unfair because it is too heavy, and thus, the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s allegation in this part is without merit.

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