2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized all of the instant crimes, and against it, most of the larceny crimes were attempted, and the damage to the larceny and the fraud was relatively minor.

The victim E expressed his/her intention that he/she does not want to punish the defendant in the investigative agency.

However, the crime of this case interferes with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers, repeats the crime of larceny four times, and purchases goods with a stolen card, and the nature of the crime is bad.

In particular, even though the defendant was under repeated crime due to larceny, etc., he committed the crime of this case, and has been punished five times due to the larceny crime.

In addition, there is no change in circumstances that are conditions for sentencing in the trial compared with the original judgment.

In full view of all such circumstances as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, including these circumstances, the lower court’s punishment is only within the scope of reasonable discretion and is not recognized as unfair because it is too unreasonable.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, in a case where the act of assault and intimidation was committed against multiple public officials performing the same official duties because it is apparent that there was omission of entry in the ordinary competition in the application of the law of the lower judgment, the crime of obstructing multiple official duties is established according to the number of public officials performing official duties. In a case where the act of assault and intimidation was committed in the same opportunity at the same place, and it is evaluated as one act in light of social norms, the crime of