2. Determination 2014 high-ranking 2998: (a) the Defendant interfered with the lawful performance of duties by police officers; (b) the Defendant assaulted the Victim H and J; (c) obstructed the operation of a bank operation by the Victim J; (d) assaulted the police officer K with a knife, a dangerous object, and obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties by assaulting the police officer upon receiving 112 report from the said J; (c) the Defendant recognized the instant crime; and (d) reflects the erroneous recognition of the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant did not have any other criminal records, other than once sentenced to a fine due to the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

However, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties requires strict punishment because of the violation of legitimate public authority. The court below seems to have determined punishment by considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and there exists no change of circumstances that could vary from the judgment below to the court below. In full view of the result of the application of the sentencing guidelines by the sentencing committee of the Supreme Court (the scope of punishment for obstruction of performance of official duties: 1 year to 4 years) and the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances, means and consequence of the crime, and other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

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.