2. Determination is a favorable condition for the following reasons: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects his mistake; (b) the degree of assault and obstruction of official duties is relatively minor; and (c) the Defendant is not committing a second offense.

On the other hand, in this case, the crime of this case was committed against a police officer who was dispatched after receiving a report and obstructing the legitimate execution of his duties by exercising violence, and the nature of the crime is not good, and in order to establish the state's legal order and eradicate the light of public authority, the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties like this case requires strict punishment. The defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor on August 21, 2014 during the suspended execution period due to the crime of violence, and the sentence of suspended execution became null and void. On October 16, 2016, the crime of this case was committed while the execution of the sentence was completed, without being aware of it, while the crime of this case was committed during the repeated crime period, and it was not received from the victimized police officer.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive for committing a crime, means and consequence of a crime, and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court sentencing committee, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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