2. The judgment that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and reflected, the degree of injury suffered by police officers in the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties of this case seems not to be serious, the defendant was not guilty, and the defendant was under medical treatment due to depression disorder at the time of this case. It is recognized that there seems to exist some reasons for taking into account the circumstances of the crimes of this case, and that the defendant should support his parents.

However, the Defendant already been punished once as a crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and has been punished twice due to the crime of interference with business, the crime of causing property damage, the crime of inflicting bodily injury, etc., and the records of being punished as a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (at night and joint injury) are not more than six times in total. In this case, the Defendant collected as if he were to look at a dangerous object to the victim of special intimidation, and it is also deemed that the crime of this case is bad that the Defendant committed the crime of this case, such as cutting out the dispatched police officers or breaking up them.

In addition, in full view of the following circumstances: Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the fact that there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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