2. The judgment that the defendant recognized and reflected each of the crimes of this case, deposited 50,000 won with the victim G as the person who was the principal of the crime, did not have any record of punishment for the same crime, and the type of the defendant used in the crime obstructing the performance of official duties of this case is significant.

The fact that it is difficult to see is a favorable situation.

However, in full view of all other circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be reasonable and is not too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s argument on the sentencing of this case is unreasonable, on the grounds that the Defendant’s crime of obstructing the performance of official duties is too unreasonable, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s crime of obstructing the performance of official duties was committed by assaulting the victim and obstructing the performance of official duties; and (b) the Defendant’s crime of obstructing the performance of official duties is not deemed to be a crime of impairing the State’s function by nullifying the legitimate exercise of public authority.

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.