The sentence of the lower court (three years of the suspended execution for one year of imprisonment, three years of probation, and two hundred hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. A favorable circumstance is that the Defendant recognized the instant crime; however, the instant crime was committed against a police officer, who was performing official duties, and took a bath and used violence; such act is highly likely to be subject to criticism in that it interferes with the police officer’s duty to maintain order, as well as that it may encourage light of the legal order and public authority, and that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapons, etc.) in 2014, due to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on Punishment of Violences, etc.).

There is no special relationship or change of circumstances that can be newly considered by this court, and in full view of the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments of this case, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

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