2. The lower court determined that the Defendant committed each of the crimes in this case by driving alcohol again within one year and three months after the suspension period expires, considering the following: (a) the Defendant’s act of driving alcohol again and driving alcohol again within one year and three months after the suspension period expires, and (b) the Defendant committed the crime in this case, which was favorable to the police officers, without complying with his demand for stopping; (c) the crime of causing bodily harm to the police officers who interfered with the performance of special duties in this case is detrimental to the foundation of the rule of law by nullifying legitimate exercise of public authority; and (d) at the same time, it could cause serious bodily harm to the police officers; (b) the drinking driving of this case is highly likely to cause significant alcohol concentration in blood; (c) the Defendant was punished for a suspended sentence due to a traffic accident while driving alcohol again; and (d) the Defendant committed each of the crimes in this case by driving alcohol again within one year and three months after the suspension period expires; and (b) the Defendant committed the crime in this case’s favor; and (d) the Defendant’s injury to the police officers and the Defendant’s injury.

The sentencing of the lower court seems to have been determined by fully considering the above various circumstances, and there is no special change in circumstances that are different from the sentencing conditions of the lower court up to the trial of the lower court, and all the arguments in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive for committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime.