2. The lower court rendered a sentence (two months of imprisonment) by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the facts that the Defendant’s mistake against the Defendant regarding the crime No. 1 (damage to Property) in its holding; (b) the victim did not want the Defendant’s punishment by mutual agreement with the victim; and (c) the equity with the case where the judgment was rendered simultaneously with the crime of injury for which the judgment became final and conclusive; and (c) the fact that the nature of the crime is not good; and (d) other factors of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and means of the crime; and (e)

In addition, considering the fact that the defendant is led to and against the crimes of Articles 2 and 3 of the decision of the court below (the obstruction of duties, injury, and obstruction of performance of official duties), the fact that the victim police officer agreed with the victim about his duties, the fact that he did not want punishment against the defendant, the fact that he was punished several times of violent crimes, the fact that he committed the crime during the period of suspension of execution, and the fact that there is a need for strict punishment in the case of obstruction of performance of official duties, the fact that there is a need for strict punishment in the case of obstruction of execution of official duties, the punishment was determined by comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and means of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime

The grounds for the defendant's improper sentencing (a confession, reflectiveness, and contingent crime due to main action, etc.) are shown to have been determined by the court below, taking into account sufficient factors in determining the punishment against the defendant, and the above conditions of the sentencing have changed otherwise.

There is no circumstance to see the above sentencing conditions, and considering the above sentencing conditions, each punishment of the court below is determined appropriate within the reasonable scope of discretion.

Defendant

The argument is without merit.

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.