The appeal is dismissed.

Judgment

It is reasonable to take into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant led to the instant crime and reflects his mistake in depth; (b) the Defendant appears to have committed an obstruction of performance of official duties by contingency; and (c) the amount of thief crime is relatively small.

However, the crime of this case is an unfavorable circumstance to the defendant, where the defendant committed an assault while putting the police officer who performs his legitimate duties, and committed a theft of other passengers' wallets in the city bus by retailing it, and the nature of the crime is not good, and there was a record of punishment several times for the same crime, and in particular, the crime of this case was committed without being aware of it during the repeated crime period, and at the same time, without being aware of it.

In this context, the scope of the recommended sentence with respect to the instant crime according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Sentencing Committee of the Supreme Court is from 2 years to 4 years 1 years: the category 1 (general repeated crime larceny), the category 1 (general repeated crime larceny), the special person (basic area), the decision-making scope of the recommended sentence (2 to 4 years), the scope of the recommended sentence (2 years), and the second crime: the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, the category 1 (Obstruction of Performance/Compulsory Performance of Duties), the group of crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties, the scope of the recommended sentence (basic area), the scope of the recommended sentence (6-1 year and 4 months), the result of the increased sentence of multiple crimes: the defendant's age, character and behavior, the environment, the circumstances of the instant crime, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

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.