2. The lower court rendered the above sentence by taking account of the following circumstances: (a) the degree of assault does not seem to be particularly heavy in the case of interference with the performance of official duties; (b) the amount of damage was insignificant in the case of damage to public goods; (c) the amount of damage was compensated by the Defendant; (d) the degree of injury was relatively minor in the case of injury; and (e) there was no criminal conviction; and (e) there was no criminal conviction in the case of injury; and (e) there was no violation of the law by recognizing the crime; (b) the police officer was assaulted and damaged to public goods during the grace period since two months have not passed after the suspended sentence became final and conclusive; and (c) again committed the crime of injury after being prosecuted; (d) there was no agreement with

In full view of the following circumstances, other than the aforementioned circumstances, there is no change of circumstances to change the sentencing of the lower court, and all other conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, background leading up to the commission of the crime, means and consequence, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There is no circumstance that the assessment or maintenance of it is deemed unfair (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Therefore, as claimed by the Defendant, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, 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.