2. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant led to the confession and reflect of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant agreed with the victim D when the instant crime was committed; (c) the victim G and the victim did not want the Defendant’s punishment; (d) the Defendant was punished on three occasions from around 2008 due to violence, obstruction of performance of official duties, etc.; (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime again without being aware of it even before 2008; and (d) the Defendant repeatedly committed the instant crime even during the period of repeated crime due to the same power; and (d) repeated the act of obstructing the performance of official duties of the police officer dispatched; and (e) the act of obstructing the performance of official duties of the Defendant was repeated; (c) it is difficult to view that there was a reason for discretionary mitigation solely due to the change in circumstances in the trial; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct environment, motive, motive, consequence, etc. of the instant crime; and (e) the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s punishment of this case was unreasonable.

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. It is so decided as per Disposition.