2. The judgment of the court below seems to have recognized the crime of this case and reflect on the fact that it appears that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, although the defendant demanded hospitalization of one person room in a traffic accident due to traffic accident, it seems that the defendant committed the crime of this case by interesting in the words that he would be hospitalized in a multi-person room or caused a pain treatment, and that the defendant could not exercise physical force other than the hummatic theory. However, the crime of this case is not likely to interfere with duties by force in an emergency room where medical treatment for critical patients is performed, and it is not good that the crime of this case is more likely to cause more damage to emergency patients in an imminent situation, and even though the defendant had been punished several times for the same crime, the defendant committed the crime of this case without agreement with the victim, even though it did not reach an agreement with the victim, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and there is no reason for the court below's decision that the defendant's punishment of this case is too unfavorable after considering the circumstances of this case, and there is no reason to recognize the circumstances and circumstances of this case's punishment.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit.