2. The Defendant recognized the facts charged and opposed to the mistake.

The defendant is in a situation where he/she needs to undergo regular medical treatment due to high blood pressure, urology, and climatic disorder, and is not good economic conditions for basic living recipients.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime at the time when three months have not passed since he/she was punished as a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties and completed the sentence.

The crime of this case is not a crime that interferes with the diagnosis and treatment of emergency patients of medical professionals by taking a bath at an emergency room, etc.

The defendant has been punished for violent crimes at least 20 times, and has been punished for obstruction of business and obstruction of performance of official duties at least five times.

In addition, taking into account the various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive and background of the offense, and circumstances after the offense, etc., the sentencing of the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, even when considering the circumstances alleged by the Defendant.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

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