However, only the Defendant filed an appeal against the guilty portion, and all the Defendant and the Prosecutor dismissed the prosecution, which became final and conclusive as they did not appeal.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction of the defendant.

2. The lower court’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) against the accused against the gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

3. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The lower court determined the sentence against the Defendant by comprehensively taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable conditions for the Defendant.

In full view of the sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. committed by the Defendant, even though the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to a crime related to violence, even though he was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to a drunk driving, etc., without being aware of it during the suspended sentence period, as well as the fact that the Defendant committed the crime of this case under drinking again during the period of the suspended sentence, the circumstances cited as the grounds for appeal, such as the Defendant’s deposit of KRW 500,00 for the counterpart police officer of the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, may not be deemed unfair because the Defendant’s sentence against the

4. 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.