2. The judgment of the Defendant recognized the instant crime and seems to have committed the instant crime by contingency while under the influence of alcohol.

In addition, the fact that the birth of the defendant was found to the police officer on behalf of the defendant and delivered the intention of the crime of private death to the defendant is favorable to the defendant.

However, the crime of this case is not likely to be a crime because the defendant assaulted the police officers due to the following reasons: (a) the police officers dispatched to the site after receiving a report on the dispute over the issue of the agency engineer and fee; and (b) the police officers sent to the site while drinking, and walking the back and the breast part of the police officers.

With respect to these crimes of obstruction of the performance of official duties, it is necessary to punish the crimes of obstruction of the performance of official duties in order to establish national law order and eradicate the light of public authority

Furthermore, it is not deemed that the Defendant is making a serious effort to improve his character and conduct in light of the fact that the Defendant was subject to criminal punishment near about 20 times prior to the instant crime, including the suspended sentence due to the same crime and the criminal record of fine, and that he again committed the instant crime.

In addition, considering the following factors, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, background of the crime, mode of crime, and circumstances after the crime, all of the sentencing circumstances shown in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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 since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.