A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (2 years of suspended sentence of KRW 5 million, 1 year of probation, 40 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of attending lectures for violent therapy) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (two years of probation, one year of probation, 40 hours of community service order, and 40 hours of violence therapy) by the court below (the fine of 5 million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant, upon receiving a report from 112, obstructed the performance of official duties by a police officer who was victimized by a crime, such as cutting down the parts of the police officer’s arms and cutting down the parts to the 112 knife the knife the knife, and cutting the parts of the knife, thereby obstructing the performance of official duties by the knife police officer who was victimized by the 112 report. The Defendant’s act obstructing the performance of official duties causes an obstacle to the establishment

On the other hand, the Defendant is a primary offender who has no criminal record, and the degree of exercising the force against the victimized police officers is relatively not much severe, and the Defendant was involved in the adjustment of emotional and behavioral behavior in the process of joining a religious organization such as I in the past and escaping therefrom, and the above mental problem seems to have affected the crime of this case, and it seems that the family relation clearly exists, such as the family members wanting the Defendant to take the action against the Defendant, which is favorable to the Defendant.

In full view of the above normal relationship and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstances leading to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the judgment of the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

In addition, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court when the sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015.