Judgment

The fact that the defendant reflects his mistake, and that he did not take any measure against the police officer who was dispatched after receiving a report even though he had been under his influence due to his self-harm while she was in a marital fighting, is likely to cause the crime of this case by contingency.

However, the crime of this case is committed by assaulting a police officer in the course of performing official duties, threatening to threaten the police officer to obstruct the legitimate performance of duties by the police officer's criminal investigation, and thus, the criminal liability of the defendant is not weak. The current attitude where police officers are under the influence of public authority to protect the legitimate performance of official duties of the State and to establish a sound social order in order to protect the large number of disorderly civil petitioners and to establish a proper performance of official duties of the State. The defendant has already been sentenced to a fine for the obstruction of performance of official duties, as well as the fact that the defendant has already been sentenced to a fine for the crime of obstruction of official duties and has the same kind of violence more than seven times. In full view of all other circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the crime of this case, circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the court below's punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

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