2. The circumstances are the following: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided and reflected, and scrapped a motor vehicle owned by the Defendant for the prevention of recidivism; (b) the police officers who wanted to withdraw the complaint but wanted to withdraw the Defendant’s wife; (c) the damage to the damaged public goods appears to have been recovered; and (d) the Defendant’s social ties relation appears to be relatively long.

However, there is a history of criminal punishment on several occasions including the same crime, and the crime of this case is a situation unfavorable to the defendant because the defendant refused to measure drinking while insulting and assaulting police officers, and destroying public objects within the police station, and the nature of such crime is grave.

Considering these circumstances, the lower court appears to have imposed a suspended sentence and a community service order for Defendant’s recidivism and social edification; there are no circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment was rendered; Defendant’s livelihood maintenance service order for 160 hours is deemed to have been partially obstructed; however, the Defendant appears to be able to carry out the community service order within the extent that it does not interfere with his/her livelihood through consultation with the protective observation office after the judgment became final and conclusive; and other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, circumstances leading to the instant crime, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., which are the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the instant records and the theory of changes, do not seem to be unfair since the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.