2. The instant crime committed was committed by the Defendant on August 5, 2014 by assaulting the police officer F, who was called out after receiving a report by having the Defendant avoided disturbance at the D gas station, and received a report on the disturbance on August 5, 2014, which led the victim to an interview with the lower part of the lower part of the police that requires approximately two weeks medical treatment, and at the same time interfere with the legitimate performance of duties by the police officer, and on September 3, 2014, by force, obstructed the victim’s business by force at the J-cafeteria operated by the victim I. The fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and against the mistake is favorable to the Defendant.

However, on October 16, 2013, the Defendant had been punished several times due to the same crime, and on the expiration of the punishment on July 10, 2014, the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had been sentenced to imprisonment with labor for ten months and a fine of five hundred thousand won due to the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, etc. on the window branch of the Changwon District Court on July 10, 2014; the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties requires strict punishment since he/she knows and infringes upon legitimate public authority; the lower court appears to have determined the punishment in full consideration of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant; and there is no change of circumstances that may vary from the lower court’s judgment; the result of the application of the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Commission of the Supreme Court (the scope of recommendations for obstruction of performance of official duties: between six months and four months) and other Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances, means and result of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s punishment is excessively unfair.

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.