2. Determination is recognized that the Defendant appears to have made a confession and reflect on all of the instant crimes, and that it appears to have reached an agreement with the victim of the crime interfering with business affairs late later (at least, the victim did not submit an agreement, but appears to have expressed his/her intention to agree on the Defendant’s defense counsel).

However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant, who is a taxi engineer B, and the victim B, takes a bath, etc., and the above victim was placed as a nearby public security center along with the defendant, and the defendant interfered with the above victim's duties by doing self-fashing the body of the taxi, etc., as well as by spiting the police officer dispatched after receiving a report. In light of the method and contents of the crime, the crime was committed, and the defendant committed the crime of this case again even though he had been punished several times including imprisonment for the same crime, the defendant committed the crime of this case, such as the defendant's age, age, sexual behavior, environment, circumstance and motive leading to the crime of this case, and circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion because it is too large.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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.