2. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s punishment was imposed by taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, given that the Defendant committed again the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties even though the Defendant had been punished for committing the crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, and that even after the Defendant was prosecuted, the Defendant committed the crime of obstructing the emergency medical services by medical personnel, and the Defendant’s appearance at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, etc., appears to have high possibility of recidivism.

However, since the judgment of the court below was rendered, there are circumstances in which the above victim does not want the punishment of the defendant among the victims of the crime of violation of the Emergency Medical Service Act since the sentence of the court below, but considering this, the defendant not only had the record of 27 times of punishment, including the punishment for violent crimes, but also has the same record of being sentenced to a fine for the same crime of obstruction of performance of official duties and two times of suspended execution, and the defendant again has been sentenced to a punishment for a prison term of 8 months on October 28, 2015, and again has been repeatedly committed the same kind of crime, it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the court below

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.