2. The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment by taking account of the following circumstances confirmed through the entire records and the purport of the pleading.

The normal circumstances that are advantageous to the defendant's recognition of the crime of this case: ① the defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment, two years of suspension of execution, one year of protection observation due to interference with the performance of official duties in this court on January 30, 2015 and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 7, 2015, the crime of this case was committed again during the suspension period; ② the defendant went to the district due to the crime of this case as stated in paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court below, and again went to the district due to the crime of this case; ② the degree of interference with the defendant's duties is not less easily considering the circumstances of the crime of this case, the degree of interference with the defendant's exercise of power, and the duration of the crime; even if all of the circumstances that can be confirmed by the above circumstances and records as appropriate, the judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of discretion.

It does not seem unfair to maintain the judgment of the court below as it is.

Therefore, the defendant's double punishment cannot be accepted.

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.