2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). A crime interfering with the performance of official duties needs to be avoided the legitimate exercise of public authority and be strict as an act impeding the legal order of the State.

In full view of the circumstances, such as the circumstances favorable to the defendant (the fact that the defendant recognized his responsibility due to each of the crimes in this case, the agreement with the victim B), unfavorable circumstances (the fact that the defendant has reached an agreement with the victim B) of the defendant, the defendant interfered with bus operation duties by taking a bath or making a large noise on a bus for the purpose of preventing infectious diseases, and assaulted the victim B who was driving public transportation, and caused the danger thereof. The defendant continued to act as a threat to the victim B even before the police officer called out after receiving the report, and the police officer was arrested of the police officer, and attempted to stop the act and attempt to stop the act arbitrarily after arresting the police officer who was arrested as the current offender and brought in the police station, and there is a high possibility of criticism by assaulting the police officer who tried to stop the act. The defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, criminal history, method and degree of exercising the type of the crime in this case, and other circumstances after arresting the offender, etc., the court below's decision of sentencing cannot be made too unfair.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is without merit.