The prosecutor did not appeal the judgment of the court below as to the guilty portion among the judgment below, and only the defendant appealed for the reason that the sentencing was unfair.

Therefore, since the court below's decision dismissing the public prosecution against the defendant is separated and finalized, it is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

Ultimately, among the judgment of the court below, only the guilty portion of the defendant belongs to the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Even when considering the fact that the defendant suffers from a disability and depression in the division of labor, and that such symptoms have an impact on the crime of this case, even though the defendant has been punished several times for the same crime, the defendant committed the crime of this case in spite of the fact that he/she had the record of being sentenced to a fine twice during the period of suspension of execution due to the obstruction of the performance of official duties, and committed the crime of this case in spite of the fact that he/she had been sentenced to a fine twice due to the obstruction of the performance of official duties, and other factors of sentencing as shown in the records, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the court below's punishment is too

4. As such, 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.