2. It is recognized that the judgment was based on the facts that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case.

On the other hand, however, the defendant committed the crime of this case with the same type of crime (Interference with duties) which has been punished several times, in particular, since the crime of this case is committed repeatedly during the period of probation for the same crime, the nature of the crime is very poor, and the risk of recidivism is assessed as high, the sentence of the defendant cannot be avoided, there is no special circumstance or circumstance newly considered in the sentencing after the sentence of the court below, there is no change in the sentencing, and all other sentencing conditions as shown in the records, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive and circumstance leading to the crime of this case, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable.

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.