2. It is recognized that the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects his mistake, that there was no record of criminal punishment for the crime interfering with the performance of official duties, and that some of the victimized police officers (H) expressed the intent of the Defendant to take the action against the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant, who was a person of violence, and the nature of the crime was poor in light of the circumstances of the crime and the method of the crime, etc. as a result of the use of repeated violence to the police officers who prevented him from committing the crime within the police force. In particular, in the case of interference with the execution of official duties, the crime of this case requires a corresponding punishment in order to establish the legal order of the state and eradicate public power at the time of the crime of interference with the execution of official duties. Despite being investigated by the investigation agency, the crime of this case was committed as a crime of interference with the execution of official duties of this case, the victim E and victim police officers I want to be punished by the defendant, and the defendant is already punished by the severe punishment of the defendant. The defendant has already been punished by the crime of this case as well as violent crime [the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act] as well as the crime of this case (the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act] even though he was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment, there seems to be no special motive for new punishment after the defendant's.

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