As to this, the part of the judgment of the court below which only the defendant appealed, and the prosecutor did not appeal against the dismissal of public prosecution, the part of the dismissal of public prosecution which the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal was excluded from and confirmed separately.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the defendant's remaining conviction except the part of dismissal of public prosecution separated and finalized as above.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) of the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

3. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the judgment of the first instance court on the grounds of appeal, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Defendant had the record of being punished several times for the same criminal act, and committed each of the instant crimes during the period of repeated crime.

In light of the attitude of each of the crimes in this case, it is inevitable for the defendant to have committed a discriminatory crime.

The defendant assaulted police officers to interfere with the execution of official duties.

No additional damage recovery or agreement has been reached even after the trial was made.

The judgment below

There is no new circumstance to consider the sentencing after the sentence, and taking into account all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.